logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.12.04 2018구합50321
광역교통시설부담금 부과처분취소
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (amended by the Government Organization Act by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport”) changed to “the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs” regardless of the change of name; hereinafter “the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport”) before amendment by the former Special Act on the Construction of Bogeumjari, etc. (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013); the said Act was amended by Act No. 1251, Jan. 14, 2014; the name was changed to the Special Act on the Construction of Public Housing; and the name was changed once as a public housing special law on August 28, 2015; hereinafter “the Bogeumjari Housing Corporation”) was designated as the Plaintiff of the Guro-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Seoul Metropolitan City”) on May 26, 2010 to 20-317, 2010.

B. On November 15, 2010, the instant project obtained approval from the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of a district plan on the instant Bogeumjari Housing District and implemented a project to create the Bogeumjari Housing District.

C. On September 2, 2016, DNA Co., Ltd. sold 60,679,260,000 square meters of the housing site in the instant Bogeumjari District in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government for the purpose of KRW 18,222 square meters (hereinafter “port 7 block”).

The Plaintiffs filed an application with the Defendant for approval of a project plan to build 4,345 units of apartment units on the 7st block of underground floor and 17th unit of ground, and on August 10, 2017, the Plaintiffs implemented the construction project upon obtaining approval of a project plan under Article 15(1) of the Housing Act from the Defendant.

(hereinafter “instant housing construction project”). (e)

On the other hand, the Defendant did not impose metropolitan transport facility charges on the instant construction project that implemented the development project with respect to 7 block, while on the other hand, on the construction project.

arrow