1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment project partnership established to implement a housing redevelopment project (hereinafter “instant project”) with the size of 68,953 square meters in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as a rearrangement project zone (hereinafter “instant project zone”).

B. The Plaintiff obtained authorization for changes in the management and disposal plan from the Defendant on December 13, 2015. The number of existing households in the instant project zone is 703 households and 1,148 households supplied after the implementation of the project.

C. The Defendant applied the imposition rate of 0.8% to the Plaintiff on July 27, 2012, pursuant to Article 5 of the former Act on Special Cases concerning the Securing, etc. of School Sites (Amended by Act No. 13006, Jan. 20, 2015; hereinafter “former School Sites Act”), with respect to 667,538,230 won for 154 households on July 27, 2012, and 15,383,200 won for 191 households on October 15, 2012; and imposed 962,339,850 won for 191 households on January 29, 2013; 315,102,840 won for 315,840 won for 5 April 15, 2013; hereinafter “former School Sites Act”) on each of the charges imposed on 154 households on 154 households on 15th, 201967

(hereinafter “each disposition of this case”) D.

On April 24, 2014, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that Article 5(1) proviso of Article 5(1)5 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Securing, etc. of School Sites (amended by Act No. 13006, Jan. 20, 2015) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “instant legal provisions”) is inconsistent with the Constitution on the part concerning “housing redevelopment project” under Article 2 subparag. 2(b) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “instant legal provisions”), and ordered the continuation of the application of the instant legal provisions (by December 31, 2014).

The Constitutional Court Order 2013Hun-Ga28 Decided April 24, 2014 (hereinafter “instant Constitutional Court Decision 201Hun-Ga28”) is Ma.

On the other hand, the Constitutional Court rendered a ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution before July 25, 2013 to secure school sites as the ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution.