[1] Criteria for the selection of comparative standard land for the calculation of land price at the time of termination of land subject to development charges

[2] In a case where one parcel of land is actually mixed into several uses, the method of calculating individual land price

[3] The case holding that in a case where the land category of the whole land of one parcel has been changed from the whole land to the lower-class land upon obtaining permission for changing the form and quality of land as to the whole land of one parcel for the installation of a gas station, and the completion inspection was completed after completion of construction, and accordingly, the land category of the whole land of one parcel has been changed from the whole land to the lower-class land, and since the land use status of the whole land is a gas station site, it cannot be calculated by weighted average method by land characteristics even if the land use status is divided into gas station site, legal land site,

[1] According to the main sentence of Article 10(1) of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 195) and Article 10(2) of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 1995), a comparative standard for calculating the land price at the time of completion of the land subject to development charges shall be selected from among the reference land determined and publicly announced as of January 1 of the year following the year in which the end of the imposition falls, and it shall not be deemed reasonable to select only the reference land on which the land subject to development charges is the most similar use of the reference land.

[2] According to the relevant provisions of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 195) and the land price ratification table, etc., the individual land price of an independent parcel is calculated as the price per unit area of one parcel as to the independent parcel according to the overall characteristics of the relevant land. Thus, even where one parcel of land is actually mixed for several purposes, if it is difficult to distinguish the main use from the main use and the secondary use, the land price shall be calculated by classifying the use whose land price is higher by classifying the use into the main use into two or more specific use areas, or if part of one parcel of land is designated as the site for urban planning facilities, in exceptional cases such as where the land is divided into two or more specific use areas or where part of one parcel of land is designated as the site for urban planning facilities, it may be calculated by weighted average method by such area.

[3] The case holding that, in a case where the land category of the whole land of one parcel has been changed from the whole land to the lower-class land upon obtaining permission for changing the form and quality of land as to the whole land of one parcel for the installation of a gas station, after completion of construction to the completion inspection, it cannot be calculated by weighted average method by land characteristics, even if the land use status is divided into the gas station site, the legal ground site, and the lower-meter land, etc.

[1] Article 10(1) of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 1995); Article 10(1) and (2) of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 1995); Article 10(1) of the former Public Notice of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 1995); Article 10(1) and (2) of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 1995); Article 15 of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act / [3] Article 10(1) and (2) of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 1995); Article 15(15) of the Public Notice of Appraisal and Appraisal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Nu3442 delivered on July 11, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2813), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu13972 delivered on February 27, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 919), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu636 delivered on December 8, 1998 (Gong199Sang, 133) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 97Nu3125 delivered on December 22, 1998 (Gong199Sang, 245) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Nu18298 delivered on October 24, 1997 (Gong1949Sang, 3949Sang, 1949Sang, 197Nu194989 delivered on July 29, 198

Plaintiff (Attorney Park Jin-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gu U.S. Market (Attorney Kim Sung-sung, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 95Gu8318 delivered on June 12, 1997

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

Examination of the Grounds of Appeal

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the main sentence of Article 10(1) of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 1995) and Article 10(2) of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 1995; hereinafter referred to as the “Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc.”) Article 10(2) of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 1995), a comparative standard for calculating the land price at the time of completion of the imposition of development charges should be selected from among the reference land determined and publicly announced as of January 1 of the year following

Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, in imposing the development charges of this case on April 10, 1995, the decision of the court below is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error of law such as the selection of comparative standard land and the violation of the legal principle as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal, as it is not appropriate to invoke the case as it differs from the case of this case. In addition, the judgment cited in the ground of appeal is not appropriate as it differs from the case of this case.

Therefore, the ground of appeal pointing this out is without merit.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the relevant provisions of the Public Notice of Values Act and the land price ratification table, etc., the individual land price is calculated as an average per unit area of one parcel for an independent parcel according to the overall characteristics of the relevant land. Thus, even in cases where one parcel of land is mixed for several purposes in reality, if it is difficult to distinguish the main purpose and the secondary purpose from the main purpose, the land price shall be calculated by classifying the use whose price is higher by the main purpose into two or more special-purpose areas, or if part of one parcel of land is designated as an urban planning facility site, the individual land price of one parcel of land can be calculated by the weighted average method for each area only in exceptional cases such as where the land is divided into two or more special-purpose areas, or where part of one parcel of land is designated as an urban planning facility site.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined each area as a surveying on the ground that the actual use of the land of this case, which is one parcel, is distinguished from the gas station site, the legal ground site, and the land which is less than three meters low, and calculated the individual land price of this case by evaluating the land price according to the price distribution rate for each of the above areas of land and adding an aggravated average of the above area. However, according to the records, the plaintiff completed the construction with permission for changing the form and quality of land as a whole in order to install a gas station in this case, and completed the completion inspection, and accordingly, the whole land of this case was changed from the whole land to the miscellaneous land to the miscellaneous land, so the main use of the whole land of this case constitutes the gas station site. Since no data exists to deem that the individual land price of this case, which is one parcel, is an exceptional case to be calculated by weighted average method by characteristics of the individual land price of the land of this case, it cannot be calculated by the method as stated

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation method of individual land price as to one parcel.

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)