2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On December 28, 2009, the Plaintiff obtained a building permit from the Defendant for Class 1 neighborhood living facilities (retail stores) with a total floor area of 210 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”) of Jung-gu, Incheon with the total area of 1,078 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from the Defendant on December 15, 201, and obtained approval for the use of the building on October 19, 201.

B. On April 20, 2011, the Defendant imposed development charges of KRW 121,69,910 on the Plaintiff as follows:

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). - Business subject to imposition: 1,165 square meters (site 1,078 square meters, road 87 square meters): The starting point of imposition: October 19, 2010 - The starting point of imposition: 85,313,857 won at the end point of imposition: - The starting point of imposition: 252,765,218 won at the start point of imposition; 12,543,061 won at the normal increase in land prices; 486,79,671 won; - Development charges: 486,79,910 won at the end point of imposition; 85,313,857 won at the end point of imposition; - The starting point of imposition: 103,205,907 won at the start point of imposition; 12,543,061 won at the normal increase in land prices; - Development charges: 121,69,970 won (=

C. On June 10, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition on the ground that “within five years from the date of obtaining approval for use, as a building excluded from the business subject to imposition of development charges, such as a broadcasting station, and the purpose of the instant building was modified, and thus excluded from the subject of development charges.” However, on October 20, 201, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a dismissal judgment (Seoul District Court 201Guhap2693), and appealed on the appeal (Seoul High Court 201Nu3898), but was sentenced to a dismissal judgment on May 3, 2012 (Seoul High Court 201Nu3898), but re-appealed on October 11, 2012, the judgment of the first instance became final and conclusive (Supreme Court 2012Du12907).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3 through 5 (including relevant numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In order to obtain a building permit for the instant land and building, the Plaintiff’s assertion is one of the size of 1,312 square meters in Jung-gu, Incheon.