Value increase in the land value of other land without the same or similar nature, whether the disposition imposing the beneficiary charges is appropriate

Inasmuch as it is reasonable to judge whether significant benefits have been paid due to road works under Article 66 of the Road Act as individual land (by parcel or parcel adjacent to the same person and owned by the same person), the imposition of the beneficiary charges on the land of this case on the basis of only the increased value of the land value of other two parcels, which are not recognized identical or similar to the land of this case and the price before and after the execution of the construction, and the increased value thereof,

Article 66 of the Road Act, Article 2 Article 3 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Collection of Charges on Road Beneficiaries, Article 65 of the Urban Planning Act

Plaintiff

Head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 79Gu651 delivered on July 28, 1982

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 66 of the Road Act provides that a road management agency shall allow a person who benefits significantly from road works to bear all or part of the expenses incurred in such works within the limits of the benefits accruing therefrom, and the matters concerning the collection thereof shall be prescribed by the Municipal Ordinance of the local government to which the road management agency belongs. The Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Collection of Charges for Beneficiary of Road, which was enacted pursuant to Articles 2 and 3 provides that the beneficiary charges shall be imposed only when the price of the land exceeds the value calculated by adding the value of the land to the value of the land before the implementation of the construction works as a result of the construction works concerning the new construction or the reconstruction of the road concerned, and the beneficiary charges shall be imposed only when the land exceeds the value calculated by adding the value of the land to the value of the land before the implementation of the construction works, which is a requirement for imposing the above beneficiary charges, to the extent that the price of the land exceeds the value calculated by adding the value

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the land of this case is legitimate on the ground that the land of this case is adjacent to and similar to the land of this case, and that the price before and after the execution of the construction of this case for the land of this case is recognized by macro evidence, and that if the price before and after the execution of the construction of this case for the land of the above two parcels is compared to the price after the execution of the construction of this case, the land of this case is deemed to have a significant benefit, and that the land of this case was also remarkably benefit from the execution of the construction of this case.

However, the court below did not have any explanation as to the land of this case, and the price before and after the execution of the construction work of this case, and the ground that the land of this case was identical or similar to that of this case, and there was no evidence showing that the above two lots of land and this case were located far away from the above two lots of land according to the evidence cited by the court below, and there was no evidence showing that the above land is identical or similar to the price before and after the execution of the construction work of this case.

Therefore, the court below's decision that the land of this case is subject to the beneficiary charge of this case on the basis of only an increase in the land value of the above two parcels without assessing the price before and after the execution of the construction work of this case, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the provisions of the Road Act and the Municipal Ordinance, and in violation of the rules of evidence and affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the judgment below's argument on this issue is justified and it is not exempt from the reversal without determining the remaining grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young