1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 6, 2013, the Plaintiff obtained a building permit (the legal fiction of permission for the diversion of the use of farmland) for the construction of detached houses on the ground of 330 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from the head of the Gu, who is the wife of Yongsan-si, the competent Si, the competent Si, and thus obtained approval for the use on November 17, 2014, by constructing a detached house (hereinafter “instant house”) in accordance with the said permission.

B. On April 6, 2015, the Defendant: (a) changed the land category of the instant land from “the answer”; and (b) deemed that the construction of the instant housing on the ground constituted a development project subject to imposition of development charges under Article 5(1)7 of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (hereinafter “Development Gains Restitution Act”); and (c) imposed development charges of KRW 1,961,410 on the Plaintiff on April 6, 2015.

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] . [The Disposition of this case] .] Entry in Gap’s 4 through 7, Eul’s 1 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant imposed development charges on E and F in relation to the construction of the above land and the D-owned housing that is the owner of each of the above land and the D-owned housing that is adjacent to the Plaintiff’s assertion. Accordingly, E and F filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the imposition of development charges and received a favorable judgment on the premise that each of the above dispositions is unlawful.

In the instant case, each development charges imposed by E and F are identical to the litigation seeking revocation of the imposition of development charges, and thus, the instant disposition is null and void due to its illegality.

(E) In each of the above lawsuits, E and F asserted that each of their own lands is less than 90m2, which is the area subject to the imposition of development charges, and thus is not subject to imposition. (B) The plaintiff also claims the same.

The Defendant’s assertion is that land adjoining to the instant land at the time of the building permit ( September 6, 2013) of the instant housing.