[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff (Law Firm Sol, Attorneys Hawon-won)

E-Government Market

July 12, 2007

Suwon District Court Decision 2005Guhap2785 Decided December 12, 2006

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition of development charges of KRW 114,734,100 against the Plaintiff on June 23, 2005 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The portion of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked. The disposition of imposition of the remaining development charges of KRW 99,443,360 not revoked in the judgment of the court of first instance among the disposition of imposition of KRW 114,734,100 against the plaintiff on June 23, 2005 by the defendant shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for a partial change or addition of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, and is as stated in Articles 8(2) and 420 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A. Of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, among the column for the reasoning of the judgment, the “1,133 square meters in paddy field,” the “1,133 square meters in Dong-dong (number 1 omitted), 108.13 square meters in Dong-dong (number 2 omitted),” shall be changed to the “1,13 square meters in Dong-dong (number 2 omitted), 882.11 square meters in Dong-dong (number 2 omitted),” and the “1,13 square meters in Dong-dong (number 2 omitted), 108.13 square meters in Dong-dong (number 1 omitted), which is the same (number 3 omitted), to the “216 square meters in Dong-dong.”

B. Of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, “Supreme Court Decision 97Nu6872 Decided December 28, 1999” in Part VI is added to “Supreme Court Decision 97Nu16787 Decided January 18, 200, etc.”

C. Of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, “I will not see it” in Part 6, Part 13, and thereafter, “(whether or not a development charge is subject shall be based on the area actually obtained a building permit including the area of the site which was donated, not on the constructed area. It shall be based on the area actually obtained a building permit, including the area of the site which was donated. It shall be also referred to as Supreme Court Decision 2004Du2073 Decided May 13, 2005, Supreme Court Decision 98Du2881 Decided December 10, 199.

(d) Of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, the first sentence on the 7th page and the 8th page shall be changed as follows:

The term "the land in this case, including the above 192 square meters, is to be deemed to be the total area of 1,133 square meters of the land in this case and the total area of 216 square meters of the same Dong-dong (number 3 omitted), and even if the part of the road site among the land in this case is excluded from the land subject to the development project in this case, as alleged by the plaintiff, the land subject to the development project in this case includes not only 941 square meters of the land in this case (=the above 1,133 square meters - the above 192 square meters), but also 161 square meters of the land in this Dong-dong (the above 216 square meters - 100 square meters of the above 1,102 square meters of the above 1,102 square meters of the land subject to the development charges, so there is no ground for the plaintiff's above assertion.

(e)in the column of reasons for the judgment of the first instance, the following parts shall be added to “any inspected defect” in Part 11 Chapter 12:

Article 10-2 (2) of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Land, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 7335 of Jan. 14, 2005) and Article 12-2 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be determined and publicly announced as of January 1 of the following year with respect to the land where the causes under the provisions of paragraph (1) have occurred between July 1 and December 31. The development project in this case was permitted on April 1, 2003 and approved for use on June 3 of the following year. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion that the use of the land in this case should be deemed to be “commercial or commercial area” from January 1, 2003 to “from July 1, 2003,” and that the Defendant’s assertion that some of the development charges in this case may not be deemed to have been adjusted to 100 square meters from the above 201 square meters of land as of July 21, 2003.”

2. If so, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Tae-dae (Presiding Judge)