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 November 16, 2004, B, the Plaintiff’s spouse, was completed the registration of transfer of ownership on November 16, 2004 with respect to the land of this case on May 7, 2008, on the following grounds: C 1,847 square meters and D 516 square meters (the two land was combined into C 2,363 square meters on April 18, 2017; hereinafter “instant land”). The Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on May 6, 2008 for the instant land on the ground of donation on May 6, 2008.

B. On July 22, 2016, E obtained a building permit from the Defendant to construct Class I neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant building”) on the instant land. On August 2, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff and E of the construction permit as the instant building constitutes “business involving land category change” under Article 5 of the Restitution of Development Gains (hereinafter “Development Gains Refund Act”) and Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

C. On March 27, 2017, E completed the construction of the instant building, and obtained approval for the use of the instant building from the Defendant, and on March 30, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that “The construction of the instant building constitutes a business subject to the imposition of development charges under Article 5 of the Restitution of Development Gains Act, and thus, the calculation statement of development costs should be submitted within 40 days from the date of approval for the use of the instant building.”

On August 28, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff and E of the predetermined amount for the imposition of development charges for the construction of the instant building.

E. Around September 22, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a request for review before notifying the Defendant of development charges with the following content:

The land price at the end of the contract is too excessive. The subject site is the back site of the F station, which is the land of the characteristics of the franchise as the back site of the F station, and there is a substantial difference in the land price between G and G, which is adjacent to the Do, and will request an examination.

F. The Defendant, on September 25, 2017, notified the Plaintiff of development charges.