Open Decision Ledger · Constitutional, administrative & state liability
A Boeumjari housing district project outside the regional transport charge
Supreme Court, Nov. 9, 2018, 2016Du51610 (judgment)
Case name: 광역교통시설부담금부과처분취소청구의소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Was a housing district formation project built under the former Boeumjari Housing Construction Special Act a project subject to the regional transport facility charge under Article 11(1) of the former Act on the Management of Wide-area Transport in Metropolitan Areas, and was a housing construction project carried out in that district therefore exempt under Article 11-2(1)(i)?
Holding
No, on both counts. Article 11(1) of the former Act on the Management of Wide-area Transport in Metropolitan Areas lists the land development projects under the Land Development Promotion Act, the site formation projects under the Housing Act and the housing construction projects under the Housing Act, but it does not cite the Boeumjari Housing Construction Special Act as a basis for the charge; the deemed-approval rule in Article 32(1) of that Act goes no further than deeming a district plan approval to be a Housing Act business plan approval. The exemption in Article 11-2(1)(i) exists to prevent double charging when a chargeable project and a later project come in turn within one area, so the earlier project must be one determined chargeable under items (i) to (iii) of Article 11(1). Since the district formation project was not such a project, the housing construction project in the district was not exempt from the charge, and the lower court's judgment holding the charge unlawful was reversed for misapprehending the scope of chargeable projects.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
이러한 법령에 따르면, 보금자리주택법에 따른 보금자리주택지구 조성사업은 광역교통법 제11조 제1항에서 정한 광역교통시설부담금 부과대상 사업에 포함되지 않는다.
Unofficial English translation
According to these statutes, the project to develop Bogeumjari Housing Districts under the Bogeumjari Housing Act is not included in the projects subject to the imposition of metropolitan transportation facility charges as provided in Article 11, paragraph (1) of the Metropolitan Transportation Act.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 대구고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
동일 지역에서 나중에 시행되는 사업이 광역교통시설부담금의 면제 대상이 되기 위해서는 앞서 시행된 사업이 ‘광역교통법 제11조 제1항 제1호부터 제3호까지에 해당하여 광역교통시설부담금 부과대상으로 결정된 사업’에 해당되어야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
For a project carried out later in the same area to be eligible for exemption from metropolitan transportation facility charges, the project carried out earlier must fall under 'projects falling under subparagraphs 1 through 3 of paragraph (1) of Article 11 of the Metropolitan Transportation Act and determined to be subject to the imposition of metropolitan transportation facility charges'.
Factors
- 위 제11조 제1항은 구 보금자리주택건설 등에 관한 특별법(2014. 1. 14. 법률 제12251호 ‘공공주택건설 등에 관한 특별법’으로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 ‘보금자리주택법’이라 한다)을 광역교통시설부담금 부과대상 사업의 근거 법률로 들고 있지 않다.
- 위 제11조 제1항 제4호는 ‘주택법에 따른 주택건설사업’에 한하여 다른 법령에 따라 사업승인이 의제되는 협의를 거친 경우도 부과대상 사업에 포함된다고 규정하고 있다.
- 위 조항의 취지는 동일 지역에 광역교통시설부담금 부과대상 사업이 차례로 시행될 경우 뒤에 시행되는 사업에 대하여는 광역교통시설부담금을 부과하지 아니하도록 하여 부담금의 이중부과를 방지하는 데 있다.
- 동일 지역에서 나중에 시행되는 사업이 광역교통시설부담금의 면제 대상이 되기 위해서는 앞서 시행된 사업이 ‘광역교통법 제11조 제1항 제1호부터 제3호까지에 해당하여 광역교통시설부담금 부과대상으로 결정된 사업’에 해당되어야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
• The above Article 11, paragraph (1) does not list the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Construction of Bogeumjari Housing, etc. (the Act before its amendment by Act No. 12251 on January 14, 2014, to the 'Act on Special Cases Concerning Public Housing Construction, etc.', hereinafter the 'Bogeumjari Housing Act') as a ground statute for projects subject to the imposition of metropolitan transportation facility charges.
• The above Article 11, paragraph (1), subparagraph 4 provides that only a 'housing construction project under the Housing Act' is included in the projects subject to the imposition of charges where it has undergone consultation for which project approval is deemed granted under other statutes.
• The purport of the above provision is to prevent the double imposition of charges by not imposing metropolitan transportation facility charges on a project carried out later where projects subject to the imposition of metropolitan transportation facility charges are carried out in the same area one after another.
• For a project carried out later in the same area to be eligible for exemption from metropolitan transportation facility charges, the project carried out earlier must fall under 'projects falling under subparagraphs 1 through 3 of paragraph (1) of Article 11 of the Metropolitan Transportation Act and determined to be subject to the imposition of metropolitan transportation facility charges'.
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2016. 11. 24. 선고 2014두47686 판결 참조
Unofficial English translation
See Supreme Court Decision 2014Du47686 decided November 24, 2016.
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If a Boeumjari housing district had also been carried out under the Land Development Promotion Act, would the later housing construction project be exempt from the charge?
Any new finding that the district formation project was also a land development project under the Land Development Promotion Act, or a site formation or housing construction project under the Housing Act, would change the outcome. So would the Act on the Management of Wide-area Transport in Metropolitan Areas as amended by Act No. 13499 of 28 August 2015, or the Boeumjari Housing Construction Special Act as replaced by Act No. 12251 of 14 January 2014.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 6 (relation to precedent).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “Follows earlier decisions” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The holding cites no precedent, so the primary reading treats the ruling as following the existing reading of the statute, while the independent reading could not identify any precedent from the text.
대법원 2016. 11. 24. 선고 2014두47686 판결 참조Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Daegu High Court, in its judgment of 2 September 2016 (2016Nu4424), held that the Boeumjari housing district formation project carried out by the Korea Land and Housing Corporation was a project falling within the regional transport facility charge under the former Act on the Management of Wide-area Transport in Metropolitan Areas. It therefore held that the plaintiff's housing construction project in that district was exempt under Article 11-2(1)(i) and that the charge imposed on 2 June 2015 was unlawful.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the district formation project was not one of the chargeable projects, so the plaintiff's housing construction project could not be exempt under Article 11-2(1)(i). Article 32(1) of the Boeumjari Housing Construction Special Act applied the Land Development Promotion Act to gaps only, and on that ground alone could not make the Boeumjari Act a special statute to that Act or the district formation project a land development project under it; nor could the deemed approval of a Housing Act business plan carry all the provisions of the Housing Act into the Boeumjari Act. Treating the district formation project as a chargeable project was an over-extension or analogy of a regulation governing the charge to the detriment of the party subject to it, contrary to the strict construction required of the basis for an adverse administrative disposition, so the judgment was reversed for misapprehending the scope of chargeable projects, after the Court omitted any decision on the remaining grounds of appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- A Boeumjari district whose formation is also carried out as a land development project under the Land Development Promotion Act, a site formation project under the Housing Act or a housing construction project under the Housing Act, so that it falls within an item of Article 11(1) itself.
- A later project in an area where the earlier project was actually determined chargeable under items (i) to (iii) of Article 11(1), which is what the exemption in Article 11-2(1)(i) presupposes.
- A project governed by the Act on the Management of Wide-area Transport in Metropolitan Areas as amended by Act No. 13499 of 28 August 2015, since the decision applied the earlier text.
Record verification notes
Identify the exact statutory item under which the district formation project was carried out and the date the district plan was approved, since the Court read the pre-2014 Boeumjari Housing Construction Special Act. Then check whether the district formation project was ever determined chargeable under items (i) to (iii) of Article 11(1) of the former Act, and which version of Article 11 was in force when the housing construction project was approved.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 구 보금자리주택건설 등에 관한 특별법에 따른 보금자리주택지구 조성사업이 구 대도시권 광역교통 관리에 관한 특별법 제11조 제1항에서 정한 광역교통시설부담금 부과대상 사업에 포함되는지 여부(소극) [2] 구 대도시권 광역교통 관리에 관한 특별법 제11조의2 제1항 제1호의 규정 취지 및 보금자리주택지구에서 시행된 주택건설사업이 구 대도시권 광역교통 관리에 관한 특별법 제11조의2 제1항 제1호에 따른 광역교통시설부담금 면제 대상 사업에 해당하는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether a project to develop Bogeumjari Housing Districts under the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Construction of Bogeumjari Housing, etc. is included in the projects subject to the imposition of metropolitan transportation facility charges as provided in Article 11, paragraph (1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Management of Metropolitan Transportation in Metropolitan Areas (negative) [2] The purport of the provision of Article 11-2, paragraph (1), subparagraph 1 of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Management of Metropolitan Transportation in Metropolitan Areas, and whether a housing construction project carried out in a Bogeumjari Housing District falls under the projects eligible for exemption from metropolitan transportation facility charges under Article 11-2, paragraph (1), subparagraph 1 of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Management of Metropolitan Transportation in Metropolitan Areas (negative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 구 대도시권 광역교통 관리에 관한 특별법(2015. 8. 28. 법률 제13499호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 ‘광역교통법’이라 한다) 제11조 제1항은 “광역교통시행계획이 수립·고시된 대도시권에서 다음 각호의 어느 하나에 해당하는 사업을 시행하는 자는 광역교통시설 등의 건설 및 개량을 위한 광역교통시설부담금을 내야 한다.”라고 규정하면서, 택지개발촉진법에 따른 택지개발사업(제1호), 주택법에 따른 대지조성사업(제3호), 주택법에 따른 주택건설사업(제4호) 등을 부담금 부과대상 사업으로 열거하고 있다. 그런데 위 제11조 제1항은 구 보금자리주택건설 등에 관한 특별법(2014. 1. 14. 법률 제12251호 ‘공공주택건설 등에 관한 특별법’으로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 ‘보금자리주택법’이라 한다)을 광역교통시설부담금 부과대상 사업의 근거 법률로 들고 있지 않다. 위 제11조 제1항 제4호는 ‘주택법에 따른 주택건설사업’에 한하여 다른 법령에 따라 사업승인이 의제되는 협의를 거친 경우도 부과대상 사업에 포함된다고 규정하고 있다. 이러한 법령에 따르면, 보금자리주택법에 따른 보금자리주택지구 조성사업은 광역교통법 제11조 제1항에서 정한 광역교통시설부담금 부과대상 사업에 포함되지 않는다. [2] 구 대도시권 광역교통 관리에 관한 특별법(2015. 8. 28. 법률 제13499호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 ‘광역교통법’이라 한다) 제11조의2 제1항 제1호는 ‘제11조 제1항 제1호부터 제3호까지에 해당하여 부담금 부과대상으로 결정된 사업의 지구, 구역 또는 사업지역에서 시행되는 같은 항 제1호부터 제4호까지, 제6호 및 제7호의 사업에 대하여는 부담금을 부과하지 아니한다.’고 규정하고 있다. 위 조항의 취지는 동일 지역에 광역교통시설부담금 부과대상 사업이 차례로 시행될 경우 뒤에 시행되는 사업에 대하여는 광역교통시설부담금을 부과하지 아니하도록 하여 부담금의 이중부과를 방지하는 데 있다. 그렇다면 동일 지역에서 나중에 시행되는 사업이 광역교통시설부담금의 면제 대상이 되기 위해서는 앞서 시행된 사업이 ‘광역교통법 제11조 제1항 제1호부터 제3호까지에 해당하여 광역교통시설부담금 부과대상으로 결정된 사업’에 해당되어야 한다. 결국, 구 보금자리주택건설 등에 관한 특별법(2014. 1. 14. 법률 제12251호 공공주택건설 등에 관한 특별법으로 개정되기 전의 것)에 따른 보금자리주택지구 조성사업은 광역교통법 제11조 제1항 제1호부터 제3호까지에 해당하는 광역교통시설부담금 부과대상 사업이 아니고, 따라서 보금자리주택지구에서 시행된 주택건설사업은 광역교통법 제11조의2 제1항 제1호에 따른 광역교통시설부담금 면제 대상 사업에 해당하지 않는다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 대구고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 구 대도시권 광역교통 관리에 관한 특별법(2015. 8. 28. 법률 제13499호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제11조 제1항 제1호, 제3호, 제4호, 구 보금자리주택건설 등에 관한 특별법(2014. 1. 14. 법률 제12251호 공공주택건설 등에 관한 특별법으로 개정되기 전의 것) 제32조 제1항 [2] 구 대도시권 광역교통 관리에 관한 특별법(2015. 8. 28. 법률 제13499호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제11조의2 제1항 제1호
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger