[1] Acts applicable to imposition of development charges (=law at the time of termination of development project)

[2] Whether the land price as of the starting point of imposition should be calculated on the basis of the fact that the purchase price reported by the person liable for payment does not correspond to the purchase price under each subparagraph of Article 9 (5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act if the value is deemed as the actual purchase

[3] Whether the disposal price under Article 10(2) of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act applies only to the case where the disposal price is lower than the price under Article 10(1) of the same Act (affirmative)

[1] With respect to the imposition of development charges, the Act at the time of completion of the requirement of imposition called the termination of development projects under the principle of prohibition of retroactive legislation, barring any special circumstances, shall be applied, and the amended Act shall not be applied even if the Act was amended thereafter.

[2] Article 10 (3) (proviso) of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 5409 of Aug. 30, 1997) provides that the land price as at the starting point of imposition shall be calculated based on the actual purchase price as determined by the Presidential Decree shall lose its effect as a decision of unconstitutionality by the Constitutional Court. Thus, even if the purchase price reported by the person liable for payment does not correspond to the price under each subparagraph of Article 9 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15238 of Dec. 31, 1996), if the value is deemed as the actual purchase price, the land price as at the starting point of imposition shall be calculated based on

[3] The provisions of Article 10 (2) of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 5409 of Aug. 30, 1997) that the disposal price may be the final land price at the time of termination in the course of disposing of the land subject to the imposition of the development charges, such as the sale in lots, is an exception provision for Article 10 (1) of the same Act that provides that the land price at the time of termination shall be calculated on the basis of the officially assessed individual land price, and in light of the form of the provision, legislative intent, etc., the disposal agency can only apply the provisions of paragraph (2) only if the disposal price under paragraph (2) is lower than the price under paragraph (1).

[1] Article 10(1) of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 5409 of Aug. 30, 1997), Article 10(1) of the Restitution of Development Gains Act, and Article 10(2) of the Addenda (amended by Act No. 5409 of Aug. 30, 1997) / [2] Article 10(3) of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 5409 of Aug. 30, 1997), Article 9(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15238 of Dec. 31, 1996) / [3] Article 10(1) and (2) of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 5409 of Aug. 30, 197)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Du10834 delivered on April 24, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 1256), Supreme Court Decision 2000Du9946 delivered on July 23, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2062) / [2] Constitutional Court Decision 95Hun-Ba35, 97Hun-Ba81, 98Hun-Ba5 and 10 delivered on June 25, 1998 (Hun-Ba28, 519), Supreme Court Decision 98Du7565 delivered on September 4, 1998 (Gong198Ha, 2428), Supreme Court Decision 98Du5859 delivered on September 22, 198 (Gong1998Ha, 2599) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 98Du985989 delivered on September 29, 1997

3 others, including the Modern and Workplace Housing Association

The head of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Seo Law Firm, Attorney Park Sang-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Nu6468 delivered on May 3, 2001

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In imposing development charges, the Act at the time of completion of the requirement for imposition called the completion of development projects under the principle of prohibition of retroactive legislation, barring any special circumstance. The amended Act does not apply even if the Act was amended (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 99Du10834, Apr. 24, 2001; 200Du9946, Jul. 23, 2002).

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the law applicable to the imposition disposition of the development charges of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case") is the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 5409 of Aug. 30, 1997, hereinafter referred to as the "former Act"), which is the law at the time of the completion of the development project of this case, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the law applicable to the imposition disposition of

2. In the proviso of Article 10 (3) of the former Act, the part that the land price as at the starting point of imposition shall be calculated based on the actual purchase price only in cases prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be invalidated on June 25, 1998 (see Constitutional Court Decision 95Hun-Ba35, 97Hun-Ba81, 98Hun-Ba5, 10, Constitutional Court Decision 98Hun-Ba5, 10, Constitutional Court Decision 98Hun-Ba5, Jun. 25, 1998). Thus, even if the purchase price reported by the person liable for payment does not fall under the price as prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 9 (5) of the former Enforcement Decree (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 15238, Dec. 31, 1996), the land price as at the starting point of imposition shall be calculated on the basis of the actual purchase price, and it does not fall under the price as at the starting point of imposition on the basis of the officially assessed individual land price (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du585, Sept. 19, 19, 25, 19, etc.

According to the facts duly admitted by the court below, since the actual purchase price of the land subject to the development charges of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "land of this case") is the amount indicated in the table of real estate (1) through (5) of the judgment of the court below in the list of real estate attached to the judgment below, and the actual purchase price of the land in this case is the amount indicated in the column for the corresponding value, the land price as of the starting point for each of the above land shall be

Therefore, the disposition of this case, which calculated the land price as of the starting point based on the officially assessed individual land price as to the above real estate list (2) or (5) among the above land, is unlawful. Therefore, the judgment below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to

3. In full view of the adopted evidence, the court below recognized that the plaintiffs purchased the above real estate list (1) through (5) from among the land in this case with the purchase price as stated in the column for the value of the purchase. In light of the records, such fact-finding by the court below is correct, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as incomplete deliberation, violation of the duty of explanation, the rule of experience

4. The provision of Article 10 (2) of the former Act that the disposal price may be calculated at the time of termination of the disposal price if the State or the local government's approval is obtained for the sale price in the course of disposing of the land subject to the imposition of the development charges, etc. is an exception to the provision of paragraph (1) of the same Article that the disposal price may be calculated at the time of termination of the disposal price based on the publicly assessed individual land price, and in light of its regulatory form and legislative intent, etc., the disposal agency can only apply the provision of paragraph (2) only if the disposal price under paragraph (2) is lower than the price under paragraph (1). Unless otherwise provided, unless otherwise, the land price as of the starting point of the imposition of the development charges is calculated on the basis of the actual purchase price, and the land price as of the end point is not necessarily calculated on the basis of the appraisal price (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du5859 delivered on September 22, 198

In the same purport, the court below is just in cancelling the disposition of this case, on the ground that the land price as of the starting point is calculated based on the actual purchase price for the land indicated in the list of real estate (1), the actual purchase price for the land indicated in the list of real estate (2) or (5), and the land price for the starting point is calculated based on the officially assessed individual land price for all as to the starting point, and on the basis of the land price for the starting point calculated based on the actual purchase price for the starting point calculated based on the land price for the starting point and the land price for the starting point calculated based on the actual purchase price for the starting point calculated based on the land price for the starting point and the land

5. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Byun Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)