beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On November 29, 2011, the Plaintiffs donated 5,115 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from D in Jeju Island, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 7, 201 with respect to each 1/3 of the instant land on December 7, 201.
B. On June 5, 2012, the Plaintiffs newly constructed the instant building on June 18, 2012 after obtaining permission for the construction of three-story general steel structure, concrete horizontal roof, and Class 1 and Class 2 neighborhood living facilities on the instant land (hereinafter “instant land”). On January 14, 2013, the Plaintiffs are running a restaurant business with the trade name “F” (hereinafter “instant development project”).
C. The Defendant issued a notice of scheduled imposition of development charges on July 12, 2013 pursuant to the Restitution of Development Gains Act (hereinafter “Development Gains Restitution Act”) and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s change of land category is accompanied by the instant development project. The Defendant imposed development charges of KRW 296,869,000 on the Plaintiffs on October 18, 2013 following the procedures for requesting review prior to notification.
(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). . [Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap's 1, 2, 6 through 8, and Eul's 2 through 6 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. In calculating the land price at the time of termination of the land of this case for the imposition of development charges, the Plaintiff’s alleged land G in Jeju City (hereinafter “the reference land of this case”) has high-class housing complex in the vicinity, commercial buildings are concentrated, and the land of this case is close to Jeju. On the other hand, the land of this case is only one residential or commercial building in the vicinity, and two convenience stores and two restaurants are scattered.