1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The area of 4,810 square meters of Seoul Jung-gu B forest was designated as “development restriction zones” under the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Development Restriction Zones Act”) and “land transaction contracts” under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”).

B. On March 8, 2011, the Plaintiff obtained a building permit from the Defendant to construct a building of the sports facility of the second floor (riding club) on the said land (hereinafter “instant building”). On March 16, 2011, the Plaintiff purchased the said land with the permission for a land transaction contract having the purpose of using 4,480 square meters of the said land (hereinafter “instant land”) as “the instant land directly for four years after the construction of a sports facility (riding club)” with regard to the land of the 4,810 square meters of the said land as of March 16, 201.

The instant building was reported on May 26, 201, and was approved on February 25, 2013.

C. On March 8, 2011, the Defendant issued a building permit for the instant building to the Plaintiff, and imposed a preservation charge pursuant to Article 21(1)2 of the Development Restriction Zone Act, and the Plaintiff paid the said preservation charge of KRW 42,445,290 (including additional charges; hereinafter “instant preservation charge”) on January 31, 2012.

On the other hand, on June 5, 2012, an implementation plan was approved and a road zone was decided with respect to the public-private partnership project on the Guri-Yeocheon Highway. Accordingly, 2,897 square meters of the instant land was incorporated into a road site.

E. On July 9, 2014, the Plaintiff claimed a refund of KRW 42,445,290 of the instant preservation charges on the ground that the remainder of the instant land, other than the site for the road, was unable to operate a riding track by itself. However, on July 23, 2014, the Defendant is impossible to refund the instant preservation charges on the ground that the Plaintiff was used for any purpose other than the original permitted riding track without cancelling the construction permission on the instant building.