1. Of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant imposed charges of KRW 153,785,570 on the Plaintiff on January 23, 2017.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. For the construction of 117 units above 440-2 6 lots of land, the Plaintiff has been implementing the project up to now with the approval of the housing construction project for multi-family housing (multi-family housing) and its ancillary and welfare facilities.

B. On January 23, 2017, the Defendant imposed KRW 153,785,570 on the Plaintiff on January 23, 2017, the Plaintiff imposed KRW 153,785,570 of the school site charges on 74 households in the quarterly alarmland keeping in the

(hereinafter “instant No. 1 Disposition”). (c)

Accordingly, on February 20, 2017, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to exempt the charge for school site. However, on March 14, 2017, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s request on the ground that “the total number of students and the number of new students of the speaking elementary school in the vicinity of the Plaintiff’s business site increases for the last five years, and this does not constitute the grounds for exemption stipulated in Article 5(4)2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Securing, etc. of School Sites (hereinafter “School Sites Act”).”

On April 24, 2017, the Defendant imposed a surcharge of KRW 7,689,270 on the charges for school site charges in the fourth quarter of 2016 on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant Disposition 2”), and imposed a surcharge of KRW 38,045,440 on the 16 household that the Plaintiff concluded an additional sales contract from January 2017 to March 2017 on the 16 household that entered into an additional sales contract (hereinafter “instant Disposition 2”). The Defendant imposed a surcharge of KRW 38,045,440 on the school site charges in the first quarter of 2017.

(hereinafter “Disposition 3 of this case”). 【The ground for recognition” has no dispute, Gap’s 1 through 3, 5 through 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul’s 1, 3 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits

A. The Defendant’s defense prior to the merits had filed the instant lawsuit with the lapse of the filing period. As such, the part of the Defendant’s claim for revocation of the instant disposition No. 1 among the instant lawsuit ought to be dismissed.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of No. 6 in the plate No. 6 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff on January 2017.