The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 10(1) of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 12245, Jan. 14, 2014) provides that “The land at the time of termination shall be the value calculated according to the comparison table under Article 9(2) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act based on the officially announced value of the reference land similar to the land at the time of the end of imposition, which is the most similar to the land at the time of the end of imposition.”

Therefore, the reference land for determining the land price at the end point of time is the most similar reference land, namely, specific use area, land category, land use (actual use), surrounding environment, location, and other natural and social conditions.

Furthermore, in order to determine the appropriateness of the selection of the reference land for land, it can also be considered whether the officially assessed individual land price determined by the reference land price maintains balance with the publicly assessed individual land price of neighboring similar land.

(2) On August 22, 2013, the lower court: (a) determined that the Defendant’s disposition of this case was unlawful on the ground that the reference land of this case, which the Defendant deemed as the basis for calculating development charges, is deemed the most similar to each other’s land and use status, among the reference land adjacent to each other’s land.

In light of the above legal principles and records, such determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the selection of comparative standard land for the calculation of development charges.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided by all participating Justices.