1. The part of the lawsuit in this case requesting for re-determination of development charges shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 29, 2009, B filed a building report with the Defendant on June 29, 2009 in order to create a site for five warehouse operation and access roads on the ground of the Gyeonggi-do Yangyang-gun, Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “C”) and four lots of forest land owned by the Plaintiff and four other (hereinafter “C”), 8,324 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). On June 22, 2010, B commenced the said warehouse building and obtained approval for the use of the building on February 13, 2012.

On February 23, 2012, the land category of the instant land was changed from “forest” to “ware site”.

(1) The amount of development charges (i) 416,39,070 (2) the land price as at the time of completion of the imposition is 22,839,840 normal increase in land prices 3,798,763 development costs 221,895,8463 development gains (i) 167,864,6214 development charges (i) 41,966,150

B. On May 1, 2012, the Defendant calculated the development charges for the instant land at KRW 41,966,150 as indicated below, and imposed a disposition on the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant land, and three other persons, including the Plaintiff, as the owner of the instant land, on the land, as stipulated in Article 5 of the Restitution of Development Gains Act.

(A) No. 3, hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). (c)

On January 18, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Land Expropriation Committee, but the said Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on January 18, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Of the instant lawsuit, the part concerning the claim for imposition of development charges on the part concerning the claim for imposition of property ex officio, and the part concerning the claim for new imposition of development charges on the Defendant among the instant lawsuit requires an administrative agency to perform the so-called obligation requiring an action of act, which is a type of lawsuit demanding an administrative agency to delete the obligation to make the court take such administrative disposition, and is not allowed under the current Administrative Litigation Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu4126, Feb. 11, 1992).