The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The reasoning in this case is the same as the reasoning in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of paragraph (2). Thus, the reasoning in this case is cited by the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination in this court [Defendant's assertion] If the Plaintiff was in Pakistan at the time of receiving permission from the Defendant at the time of obtaining permission for development activities, the Plaintiff was F, and F, upon obtaining permission for development activities from the Defendant, sold each of the above lands to the Plaintiff by a special agreement with the Plaintiff, development gains substantially accrue to F, who was the owner at the time when the Plaintiff received permission for development activities.

In light of these circumstances, the project implementer is F, and the status of the project implementer was transferred from F to the Plaintiff through the registration of ownership transfer.

Therefore, the Plaintiff should be deemed to succeed to F’s duty of payment pursuant to Article 6(1)3 of the Restitution of Development Gains Act.

[1] (1) Article 6(1)3 of the Development Gains Refund Act provides that “If a person succeeds to the status of a project operator before completion of a development project, or succeeds to the status of a person falling under subparagraph 1 or 2, the person who succeeds to the status shall be liable to pay the development charges.”

In order to apply the above provision in this case, it should be proved that F succeeded to the Plaintiff’s status as the concessionaire from F.

However, if you teach D land, F did not obtain permission for development activities, and the plaintiff completed the completion inspection after obtaining permission for development activities from the beginning.

In this respect, there is a difference between G, H and I, after cancelling permission for development activities in its own name around November 2008 by F with respect to E land in the case of Pakistan, and after cancelling such permission, G, H and I are subject to development activities in its own name.

(B) The Plaintiff acquired the status of the project implementer after obtaining permission for development activities from the beginning, and completed development activities.