[1] The method of selecting standard land to calculate the land price at the time of completion of imposition of development charges

[2] Whether the land price ratification table prepared and provided by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs pursuant to Article 9(2) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act has legal character (affirmative)

[1] Article 10(1) of the Restitution of Development Gains Act / [2] Article 10(1) of the Restitution of Development Gains Act, Article 9(2) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2009Du13771 Decided November 12, 2009 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Nu17103 decided May 26, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 1786)

UNNTT Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Im-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Market for the United States

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu42388 decided October 27, 2011

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 10(1) of the Restitution of Development Gains Act provides that the value of the land subject to imposition at the time of completion of imposition to determine the standard for imposition of development charges (hereinafter referred to as “final land at the time of completion”) shall be the aggregate value of the increases in land prices from January 1 of the pertinent year to the end of imposition according to the comparison table under Article 9(2) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act (hereinafter “Price Announcement Act”) on the basis of the officially announced value of the reference land which is the most similar to the land subject to imposition at the time of completion of imposition. In such cases, as the reference land price for calculating the final land price at the time of completion shall be the same time as the reference land price which is the most similar to the land subject to imposition, i.e., specific use area, land category, surrounding environment, location, and other similar conditions (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1371, Nov. 12, 209). 9(2) of the Act provides that the land price subject to be determined by the Minister of Land shall be determined by comparing 9.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in order to determine the criteria for imposing the development charges of this case, the court below determined that the disposition of this case was not unlawful on the ground that the Defendant did not err in the imposition of the development charges of this case on the land of this case on the ground that the land of this case does not fall under urban planning facilities or public land as determined by the standard land price ratification table of the land price of this case under Article 9 (2) of the Public Notice of Values Act (standard comparison table for the land price of 2008)- Gyeonggi-do (VII), which is the land price ratification table for the year 2008 (hereinafter “land price ratification table”), and that the land of this case owned by the Plaintiff does not fall under either urban planning facilities or public land as determined by the standard land price ratification table of the standard land price of this case, nor any of the urban planning facilities' price allocation rate of facilities among urban planning facilities and 0.70.00 of the public land price of this case on the basis of the officially announced land price of standard land as determined by the Defendant.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of the land price ratification table in the calculation of land price at the time of termination to determine the standards for imposition of development charges, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment by lowering the selection of standard land or applying the price allocation

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)