-2010 Gohap138777 Revocation of revocation of imposition of development charges;

1. Kim ① (69 years old, south)

Seoul

2. Kim △△△ (68 years old, female, and 68 years old);

Seoul

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff LLC

담당변호사 변♡♡

port of destination

Litigation Performers Kim

January 20, 201 20

February 17, 2011

1. The Defendant imposed development charges of KRW 60, 298, and 900 on the Plaintiffs on July 6, 2010, and imposition of development charges of KRW 39, 302, 2

101 won shall be revoked in all of the imposition of development charges.

2. The defendant bears the costs of lawsuit.

The order is as set forth in the text.

갑 제1 , 2호증의 각 1 내지 4의 각 기재에 의하면 , 피고는 2010 . 7 . 6 . , ( 1 ) 원고들 이 대상사업명을 단독주택 부지조성 ( 용인시 00구 米米동 008 외 3필지 ) , 토지소재 지를 용인시 00구 * * 동 008 외 3필지 , 사업인가일을 2009 . 12 . 4 . 건축 ( 개발행위 의제 ) , 사업준공일을 2010 . 2 . 9 . 건축물사용승인 , 사용승인면적과 부과면적을 각 982m² 로 하여 60 , 298 , 900원의 개발부담금을 부과하는 처분 , ( 2 ) 원고들이 대상사업명을 단독 주택 부지조성 ( 용인시 00구 * * 동 009 - 7 , 009 - 8 ) , 토지소재지를 용인시 00구 구 * * 동 009 - 4 , 사업인가일을 2009 . 12 . 4 . 건축 ( 개발행위 의제 ) , 사업준공일을 2010 . 2 . 9 . 건축물사용승인 , 사용승인면적과 부과면적을 각 750m로 하여 39 , 302 , 210원의 개 발부담금을 부과하는 처분을 한 사실을 인정할 수 있다 .

In the instant case, the Plaintiffs were co-owners of the aforementioned issues, and the size of the building site that the Plaintiff Kim ① received is less than 90 square meters, and the building site area that the Plaintiff Kim △△△△ received is less than 990 square meters, and the building site area that the Plaintiff Kim △△△△△ was granted is less than 990 meters, and each Plaintiff does not meet the requirements for

The key issue of this case is whether development charges may be imposed in excess of 990 square meters in total when co-owners complete a building with their respective building permits even though the building is not deemed the same person and is not jointly constructed.

The defendant asserts that if only the requirements of co-owner are met, the area must be added as above.

However, just because it is a co-owner, the defendant can not be the same person. The case cited by the defendant (Supreme Court Decision 2000Du9694 Decided April 24, 2001, etc.) presents not the co-owner but the co-owner's joint requirements.

In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge the common use of the project in this case, and there is no way to extend the development of siblings to the same person under Article 5 of the Restitution of Gains Act and Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree thereof (see Supreme Court Decision 2006 - 9559, Mar. 29, 2007, etc.).

If so, it is unlawful to take the instant disposition on the ground that the total area exceeds 990 square meters solely on the ground that it is a co-owner.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are accepted because they are based on the grounds.

Judge Ma-gu of the presiding judge

Judge Lee Jae-young

Judges Kim Min-young