Gangnam-gu Urban Development Association (Law Firm Rate, etc. and one other, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor (Law Firm International, Attorney Kim Financial Resources, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

January 8, 2010

Ulsan District Court Decision 2008Guhap2068 Decided September 9, 2009

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A. On May 26, 2008, the part of the Defendant’s imposition of KRW 14,275,307,00 against the Plaintiff, which exceeds KRW 4,143,09,768, out of the imposition of KRW 14,275,30,00.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. 30% of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 14,275,307,00 against the Plaintiff on May 26, 2008 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. On May 26, 2008, the defendant revoked KRW 9,296,290,290,233 of the metropolitan transportation facility charges imposed on the plaintiff on May 26, 2008.

B. Defendant: The part against the Defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to the above revocation is dismissed.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by comprehensively considering the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1, 5, and Eul evidence 1:

A. On January 2, 2007, the Plaintiff was an implementer of an urban development project for one member of the Dong-dong (number omitted) in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, and obtained authorization from the head of Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, for an implementation plan for an urban development project (hereinafter “instant project”) under Article 18 of the Urban Development Act and Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act from the head of the Gu, and the head of the Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, North Korea announced the authorization of the implementation plan on January 4,

B. Of the instant project, the area of the third-class general residential area where apartment houses are constructed among the instant project is 169,516 square meters, and according to the guidelines for the implementation of district unit planning (293 square meters), apartment houses are allowed to be constructed only for 102,101 square meters in the case of a quasi-residential area, and the total area is 102,101 square meters in the case of a quasi-residential area. According to the guidelines for the implementation of district unit planning (301 square meters), in the case of a commercial facility area, the main complex building to be installed along with an apartment house is not permitted in principle, but is permitted only to block (household number: commercial 8) designated as a group of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay, taking into account the activation of the relevant district and

C. On April 9, 2007, the Defendant imposed KRW 21,174,671,00 on the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against this. The Minister of Construction and Transportation rendered a ruling revoking the above disposition on January 11, 2008.

D. After that, on May 26, 2008, the Defendant imposed KRW 14,962,642,00 on the Plaintiff, but settled the charges of KRW 14,275,307,00, which was deducted from the construction cost of the road on July 10, 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The details of the instant disposition are as follows.

본문내 포함된 표 구 분 내 역 비 고 1㎡당 표준개발비 257,000원 ？ 부과율 0.075 ？ 개발면적 603,217㎡ 전체면적 996,500㎡ - 제외면적 393,283㎡(기부채납용지 및 학교용지) 용적률 650% (공동주택용지 250% + 준주거용지 500% + 상업용지 1,200%) ÷ 3 공제액 9,237,160,000원 지구구역 또는 사업지역 밖의 도로설치비용 경감율 50％ 대도시권 광역교통관리에 관한 특별법 제11조의2 제2항 최종 부과금액 14,275,307,000원(천원미만 버림) [{1㎡당 표준개발비 × 부과율 × 개발면적 × (용적률 ÷ 200)} - 공제액] × 0.5

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition shall be revoked on the grounds that it is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) According to Article 3-4 [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, apartment houses are classified into apartment houses, apartment houses, multi-household houses, and dormitories, and there are no references to main apartment buildings, it is not apartment houses. Under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the Ulsan Metropolitan City Urban Planning Ordinance (hereinafter “Urban Planning Ordinance”) the urban planning ordinance of Ulsan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Urban Planning Ordinance”), commercial buildings are excluded from commercial buildings when calculating the floor area ratio. Even if it is interpreted that commercial buildings are included in calculating the floor area ratio, the main apartment buildings refer to buildings that combine apartment houses and non-residential buildings for less than 80% of the total floor area ratio, and thus, the floor area ratio of the commercial area should be calculated by 80% of the total floor area ratio when calculating the floor area ratio.

Article 78(1), Article 85(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, Article 85(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 46 [Attachment 24] subparagraph 3(b) of the Urban Planning and Utilization Ordinance provides that the floor area ratio of the apartment in the quasi-residential area shall not exceed 250%, so the floor area ratio of the quasi-residential area shall be applied

Consolidatedly, the Defendant calculated the average floor area ratio under the criteria for imposing charges for metropolitan transportation facilities by calculating the arithmetic mean of the floor area ratio of each site. However, the weighted average floor area ratio, which takes into account the site area, should be applied.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Whether the commercial facility site corresponds to “the site on which multi-family housing is constructed”

㈎ 대도시권 광역교통관리에 관한 특별법(2009. 1. 30. 법률 제9389호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 ‘대광법’이라 한다.) 제11조의2 제3항 , 제11조의3 제1항 제1호 및 같은 법 시행령(2008. 11. 11. 대통령령 제21113호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 ‘대광법 시행령’이라 한다.) 제16조의2 제2항 에 의하면, 도시계획구역안에서 시행하는 도시개발법에 의한 도시개발사업에서의 광역교통시설부담금은 “[{1㎡당 표준개발비 × 부과율 × 개발면적 × (용적률 ÷ 200)} - 공제액] × 0.5”로 계산한 금액으로 하고, 용적률의 산정과 관련하여 해당사업이 시행되는 지구·구역 또는 사업지역 안에서 공동주택만이 건립되거나 공동주택과 단독주택이 함께 건립되는 경우 공동주택이 건립되는 용지의 평균용적률을 적용하도록 규정하고 있다.

㈏ 한편, 국토계획법 제76조 제1항 , 같은 법 시행령 제71조 제1항 및 [별표 8, 9, 10]은 중심상업지역에서는 도시계획조례가 정하는 바에 의하여 건축법 시행령 [별표 1] 제2호의 공동주택과 주거용 외의 용도가 복합된 건축물로서 공동주택 부분의 면적이 연면적 합계의 90퍼센트 미만(다만, 90퍼센트 미만의 범위 안에서 도시계획조례가 따로 비율을 정한 경우에는 그 비율 이하)인 건축물(이하 ‘주상복합건물’이라 한다.)을, 일반상업지역 및 근린상업지역에서는 주상복합건물과 도시계획조례가 정하는 바에 따른 주상복합건물에 해당하지 아니하는 공동주택을 건축할 수 있다고 규정하고 있고, 도시계획조례 제29조 및 [별표 7, 8, 9]는 중심상업지역에서는 주상복합건물을 건축할 수 있으며, 중심상업지역, 일반상업지역 및 근린상업지역에서 건축할 수 있는 주상복합건물은 다른 용도와 복합되고 주거용으로 사용되는 부분의 면적이 연면적 합계의 80% 미만일 것을 규정하고 있다.

㈐ 살피건대, 대광법 제1조 , 제2조 , 제11조 를 비롯한 관련 규정들을 종합하여 보면 도시개발사업을 시행하는 자에게 광역교통시설부담금을 부과하는 취지는 대도시권의 주택건설사업 등으로 급증하는 교통수요에 대비하여 원인제공자 내지 수익자에게 교통시설 설치비의 일부를 부담시킴으로써 대도시권의 교통난을 완화하기 위한 재원을 확보하고자 함에 있는 점, 대광법 시행령 제16조의2 제2항 은 부담금의 산정시 공동주택 또는 단독주택이 건립되는 용지의 평균용적률을 적용하도록 하여 주택을 기준으로 그 용적률에 비례하여 교통수요가 증가한다는 전제하에서 주택이 건립되는 용지의 용적률만을 산정하도록 규정하고 있는 점, 국토계획법 시행령 제71조 제1항 [별표 8]에서 주상복합건물을 건축법 시행령 [별표 1] 제2호의 공동주택과 주거용 외의 용도가 복합된 건축물로서 공동주택 부분의 면적이 연면적 합계의 90퍼센트 미만인 것으로 규정하여 공동주택의 면적이 전체 건축물 면적의 상당부분임을 예정하고 있는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 주상복합건물은 공동주택을 전제로 하여 주거용 외의 용도가 복합된 것일 뿐 주거용으로 사용되는 부분은 공동주택에 해당한다고 할 것이고, 건축법 시행령 제3조의4 는 건축물의 종류로 공동주택을 규정하면서 주택으로 쓰는 층수와 바닥면적에 따라 아파트, 연립주택, 다세대주택, 기숙사로 세분하고 있는 것에 불과하므로, 건축법 시행령에 주상복합건물이 명시되어 있지 않다는 이유만으로 주상복합건물 중 주거용 부분이 공동주택에 해당하지 않는다고 할 수 없다.

㈑ 따라서, 국토계획법 및 도시계획조례가 상업지역에 공동주택인 주상복합건물의 건축이 가능함을 규정하고 있고, 원고의 지구단위계획 시행지침에서 공동주택용지와 준주거용지 및 상업시설용지에 공동주택의 건축이 허용됨을 명시하고 있음은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없으므로, 대광법 시행령 제16조의 2 제2항 제1호 의 ‘공동주택이 건립되는 용지’에는 이 사건 사업의 공동주택용지와 준주거용지뿐 아니라 상업시설용지도 포함된다고 할 것이다.

As to the floor area ratio

㈎ 제3종 일반주거지역

Article 46 [Attachment Table 24] subparagraph 3 (a) of the Urban Planning Ordinance does not conflict between the parties that a site for multi-family housing constructed in the residential area of the instant project is a Class 3 general residential area, and Article 46 [Attachment Table 24] subparagraph 3 (a) of the Urban Planning Ordinance provides that the floor area ratio of Class 3 general residential area where multi-family housing is constructed shall not exceed 250

㈏ 준주거지역

Article 16-2 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Large-Scale Act provides that the maximum floor area ratio prescribed by municipal ordinance of the Special Metropolitan City, a Metropolitan City, a Si, or a Gun may be applied pursuant to Article 78 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act in cases where the project implementer cannot calculate the average floor area ratio pursuant to paragraph (2) within 60 days from the date on which the approval or authorization of the relevant project was obtained, but it shall be settled without delay when the average floor area ratio can be calculated. According to subparagraph 1 of Article 16-2 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Large-Scale Act, it can be acknowledged that the specific scale of multi-family housing, etc. to be constructed in the instant project from January 2, 2007 to May 26, 2008, which is the time of the instant disposition, has not been determined. Thus, it constitutes a case where the maximum floor area ratio set forth in Article 16-2 (3)

In addition, Article 46 and [Attachment 24] 1 of the Urban Planning Ordinance under Article 85(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act provide that the general standards for the floor area ratio of quasi-residential areas shall be 500%, and [Attachment 24] 3(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act provides that multi-family housing in quasi

According to the above provision, the maximum limit on the floor area ratio of multi-family housing that can be constructed in a quasi-residential area is 250%. Thus, the maximum limit on the floor area ratio stipulated in Article 16-2 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the light-based Act shall not be 500% on the general standard, but 250% on the strengthened standard shall be applied. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion

㈐ 일반상업지역

Article 46 and [Attachment 24] subparagraph 1 of the Urban Planning Ordinance stipulate the floor area ratio of a general commercial area as 1,200%, and there is no separate criteria for mitigation and reinforcement as a quasi-residential area for a commercial area.

However, in light of the fact that Article 16-2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Large-Scale Mineral Act provides that the average floor area ratio of the site where an apartment house or a site where a detached house is constructed shall be applied in calculating the charges so that traffic demand shall increase in proportion to the floor area ratio based on a house, the traffic demand may increase only to the extent of less than 80 percent of the total floor area ratio of the site where an apartment house is constructed among the main complex buildings constructed in the general commercial area of this case pursuant to the National Land Planning Act and the Urban Planning Ordinance.

Therefore, in calculating the metropolitan transport facility charges, it is reasonable to view that 960 percent, which is the total floor area of multi-family housing, should be applied to the general commercial area ratio of 80 percent, which is the total floor area of multi-family housing, among the floor area ratio of the general commercial site of this case. Therefore,

【Calculation Method of Average Floor Area Ratio

With respect to the method of calculating the average floor area ratio stipulated in Article 16-2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Large-Scale Act, the purport that the floor area ratio should be considered in calculating the floor area ratio is to reflect the increase of the population in the project area in proportion to the floor area ratio of the house and the increase in transport demand accordingly.

Therefore, if the arithmetic mean of the floor area ratio of each region divided by the number of regions is to be the average floor area ratio, the floor area ratio does not take into account the areas of each region having high floor area ratio, and even if the area of each region having high floor area ratio is extremely minor, the calculation of the floor area ratio has a significant impact on the calculation of the floor area ratio, or in opposition, a distorted outcome irrelevant to an increase in actual traffic demand occurs. Therefore, it is reasonable to calculate the average floor area ratio by the weighted average calculated by adding all values calculated by multiplying the area of each region by the floor area of each region by the floor area

xCalculation of the average floor area ratio of the project in this case

Article 46 and [Attachment Table 24] subparagraph 3 (a) of the Urban Planning Ordinance stipulate that the floor area ratio of multi-family housing shall not exceed 250% in a Class-III general residential area, 250% in a quasi-residential area, and 960% in a general commercial area, respectively, and in calculating the average floor area ratio, it is reasonable to use a method based on the weighted average of the floor area ratio in calculating the average floor area ratio. Among the instant projects, the area of a site for multi-family housing is 169,516 square meters in a case of a site for multi-family housing, the area of a quasi-residential site for multi-family housing is 102,101 square meters in a case of a site for multi-family housing, and the area of a commercial eight district where a multi-family housing is constructed among general commercial

Table (169,516㎡ x 250%) located in the main body ＋ (102,101㎡ x 250%) + (21,208㎡ x 960%) = 301.422% x 169,516§³ + 102,101㎡ + 21,208§³.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the metropolitan transport facility charges for the Plaintiff calculated pursuant to Article 11-3 (1) 1 of the Large-Scale Act are unlawful in the part exceeding the above 4,143,09,768 won [257,00 won per square meter x imposition rate 0.075 x 603,217 square meters x (area ratio 301.42% x 200%) - deducted amount 9,237,160,00 won] x 0.5. As such, the part exceeding the above 4,143,09,768 won among the dispositions in this case is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the portion exceeding KRW 4,143,09,768 of the disposition of imposition of the metropolitan transportation facility charges of KRW 14,275,307,00, which the Plaintiff seeks revocation, shall be revoked. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. However, the judgment of the first instance court is partially unfair with the conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition by accepting part of the Plaintiff’s appeal and changing the judgment of the first instance court.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Yoon Jin-tae (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)