logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.10.27 2016나2008761
부당이득금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an association established to implement a housing redevelopment project in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 285 (hereinafter “instant redevelopment project”).

B. Under Article 5 of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Securing, etc. of School Sites (amended by Act No. 8679 of Dec. 14, 2007, i.e., the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Securing, etc. of School Sites, i.e., the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Securing, etc. of School Sites), the head of Mapo-gu (the affairs related to the charges for school sites related to the instant redevelopment project is delegated to the head of Mapo-gu) imposed charges on the Plaintiff each of the charges for school sites on the Plaintiff on July 26, 2012, KRW 456,149,060 (hereinafter “the charges for school site”).

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). On August 27, 2012, and July 30, 2013, the Plaintiff paid charges for respective school sites, thereby paying the instant school site charges by the time.

The use place of the school site charges in this case is not limited to a specific school.

C. Meanwhile, regarding the method by which the Plaintiff, instead of paying the school site charges, donated the Defendant the extension expenses of the Seoul Mari Elementary School (hereinafter “instant elementary school”), which is a specific school, to the Defendant, the person in charge of the Plaintiff, the public official in charge of Mapo-gu Office of Administration, the public official in charge of the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Office of Education under the Defendant, and the public official in charge of the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office of Education (hereinafter “Seobu District Office of Education”) conducted discussions on March 26, 201

On April 24, 2014, when the above discussion was underway, the Constitutional Court excluded the portion on housing redevelopment project under Article 2 subparagraph 2(b) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “instant legal provision”) from the subject of imposition of charges for school sites where “where existing residents and the owners of land and buildings sell it in lots” under Article 5(1) of the former School Sites Act.

arrow