The meaning of "persons who receive a substantial benefit from the urban planning project" under Article 65 (1) of the Urban Planning Act.

The term "persons who receive a substantial benefit from the urban planning project" under Article 65 (1) of the Urban Planning Act includes not only the owners at the time of the announcement of the implementation of the urban planning project but also the successors who can receive a benefit from the project.

Article 65 (1) of the Urban Planning Act

Plaintiff 1 and 2 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Gwangju High Court Decision 78 Gu11 delivered on September 10, 1980

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below determined that the transfer registration of real estate in this case was omitted from the intermediate registration on August 6, 1977, which was the date of the public announcement of the implementation of the urban planning project, and was completed on September 30, 197, under the name of the plaintiffs, and again sold from the non-party 1 to the non-party 2 who was the owner of the non-party 1 on March 21, 197, which was the date of the public announcement of the implementation of the urban planning project (the record shows that the court below stated on March 26, 197) and sold to the plaintiffs from the non-party 2 (the record shows that the payment date of the remaining purchase price was the five months after the date of the public announcement of the above project and that the delivery date of the land was agreed upon as the remaining payment date) and that the plaintiffs were also liable for the payment of compensation charges and compensation charges for the land under the urban planning project.

In light of the above, the court below's finding of facts is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence in the process of finding the facts, and pursuant to Article 65 (1) of the Urban Planning Act, the executor of the urban planning project may impose the beneficiary charges on the person who is remarkably benefited from the urban planning project he implemented. However, even if the real estate owner is not the owner of the real estate who completed the registration of ownership transfer at the time of the public announcement of the implementation of the urban planning project, deeming that it is included in the successor who is able to benefit from the construction project pursuant to the urban planning project, such as the plaintiffs, is also in accordance with the purpose of the Urban Planning Act in order to have the beneficiary charges borne by the beneficiary to the beneficiary who is benefited from the urban planning project. Accordingly, the court below's rejection of the plaintiffs' claim in the same purport is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the beneficiary charges, such as the theory of lawsuit, misunderstanding of legal principles as to the acquisition of real estate ownership, the reason and lack of reasons.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Tae-hee (Presiding Justice)