beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant calculated the land price at the time of completion for each of the instant lands by means of appraisal and assessment by an appraisal corporation without following the method prescribed by Article 10(1) of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (hereinafter “Development Gains Restitution Act”). As such, the instant disposition is unlawful.
B) Even if the land price at the time of completion for each of the instant lands can be calculated based on the appraisal by the appraisal corporation, in light of the following: (a) the comparison standard of the instant land located near I is close to the commercial-centered area; (b) the area of the instant land, the area of which is less than 520 square meters, is approaching the road; and (c) the area of the instant land is 8,296 square meters and has excellent access conditions; (d) while the area of the instant land is equal to the area of 8,296 square meters and in itself, it is a blind land, and (e) the area of each of the instant land is divided into two parts; (b) there is a central separation cost for each of the instant land; and (i) the area of the instant land is divided into 310 square meters and 166 square meters; and (iii) the area of the said land is merely 5,939 square meters that can be used as the actual site, it is remarkably unreasonable to calculate the land price at the end of each of the instant land.
(2) The part that exceeds the development charges of KRW 402,645,570, which is calculated on the premise that the land price at the time of completion of each of the instant lands is KRW 6,037,00,000, is unlawful. (2) The Defendant’s assertion is in accordance with Article 10(1) of the Restitution of Development Gains Act.