1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The grounds alleged by the plaintiff in the trial while filing an appeal for the citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the already asserted in the court of first instance. However, the fact-finding and decision of the court of first instance are deemed legitimate even if all the claims asserted in the trial were considered.

Therefore, the reasoning for this Court regarding this case is as follows, except for adding the following supplementary judgments as to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes in the trial at the trial, and therefore, it is identical to the entry of the reasoning of the judgment at the court of first instance. Therefore, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

【Supplementary decision】 Although the designation of the urban renewal acceleration district in this case was cancelled and the urban renewal acceleration plan and the cost-sharing plan were abolished, it is reasonable to view that the effect of the determination of the urban renewal acceleration plan, etc. due to the cancellation of the designation as above is only invalid in the future and does not lose its retroactive effect because the improvement project for the H zone in which the plaintiff started was newly constructed after the completion of 797 apartment buildings, and therefore, it does not lose its retroactive effect (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da23460, May 26, 2011). Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of imposition of infrastructure charges against the Plaintiff does not lose its retroactive effect (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da23460, May 26, 2011). In particular, the disposition of imposition of overdue interest was not revoked after the judgment became final and conclusive to the effect that the Plaintiff’s installment interest in this case is legitimate, and (3) there is no basis to seek refund of overdue interest and no internal provision in the city.

The plaintiff asserts that it is improper to refund the infrastructure charges itself and to refund the interest and overdue interest in installments incidental thereto, but the interest and overdue interest are paid in installments.