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

On March 14, 2012, the Plaintiff obtained approval from the Defendant on March 14, 2012, for the construction of a factory for the manufacturing business of metal processed products (a total of 4,744 square meters of building area, manufacturing facilities, and 1,275.66 square meters of incidental facilities; hereinafter “factory of this case”) on the ground of 4,468 square meters in total of 1,727 square meters of land of 9,303 square meters and 45,719 square meters of forest land E owned by the Defendant, which was owned by B, and accordingly deemed to have obtained approval for the diversion of farmland, permission for conversion of mountainous districts, and permission for the development of a factory site.

On May 7, 2012, the instant land was divided into 1,743 square meters prior to the same Ri (hereinafter “instant land”). On the same day, the said E forest land was divided into 45,719 square meters on the same day, and was divided into G 2725 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B and D completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case to the Plaintiff on the same day on April 25, 2012.

Section 1,409,371,973 ② The calculation details of the sectional calculation (won) ① The land price as of the starting point of the deduction amount is 274,73,880 development cost 48,781,639 development cost 434,476,031 ③ Development gains (=1,380,423 ④ Development charges 651,380,423 ④ (=3 25%, 25%, and less than 000 won) 162,845,106 Defendant used the building of this case to the Plaintiff on September 23, 2015. On June 24, 2016, the Defendant calculated the land price as of the officially assessed individual land price of the above land as of the starting point of the commencement point of the construction, and imposed development charges on the factory of this case calculated as of the estimated land price in the following year 1,2012 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Ground of recognition】 without any dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1-1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1-1 through 2, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the argument of the plaintiff’s assertion as to the judgment, the plaintiff’s assertion, including the land Nos. 1 and 2, through H, the agent of July 15, 2010 before obtaining approval for the establishment of the factory of this case.