1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim extended by this court is dismissed.

3...

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows: (a) other than adding the following (2) with regard to the Plaintiff’s second or new assertion in this court, the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is identical to the part of the reasoning of the judgment; and (b) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. The portion to be determined additionally

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Since the Defendant did not give prior notice to the Plaintiff at the time of the instant disposition, there are procedural defects in the instant disposition. 2) The legislative purpose of the Special Act on the Construction and Support of Innovation Cities Following Relocation of Public Agencies (hereinafter “Intelligent City Act”) is to interpret innovation urban development projects as not subject to the imposition of metropolitan transport facility charges by distinguishing them from urban development projects (Articles 14(1) and 48(2)), the principle of equality is violated if the innovative urban development projects are not subject to the imposition of metropolitan transport facility charges. The implementation of a large-scale development project, thereby creating metropolitan transport demand and imposing the charges for the metropolitan transport facility charges on the innovative city development project that enjoys the benefit of the metropolitan transport network, thereby satisfying the equity.

Therefore, a person liable to pay charges under Article 11(1) of the Special Act on the Management of Intercity Transport in Metropolitan Areas (hereinafter “Intercity Transport Act”) is the Jeonnam Development Corporation, a project implementer for the innovation city development of the instant site.

The Plaintiff is merely a person who purchased the instant site from the Jeonnam Development Corporation, an innovative city development project implementer, and conducted a housing site development project on the instant site. As such, the Plaintiff is a person to whom metropolitan transport charges are reduced or exempted pursuant to Article 11-2 (1) 1

3. The 3rd Southern Development Corporation shall be from the buyers of real estate in the land for the innovation urban development project of this case, including the plaintiff.