1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. C and 11 others obtained from the Defendant on April 28, 200 the permission for changing the form and quality of a forest to create housing sites with respect to D forest land in the Suwon-si District District. On January 24, 2006, the permission for converting the purpose of conversion into the development of a site for detached houses and neighborhood living facilities (retail stores, clinics, resting restaurants, etc.) on January 24, 2006

B. On March 20, 2006, the above D Forest was subject to registration conversion into E forest and field, and simultaneously the F or G 13 forest were divided into E forest and field.

C. On June 7, 2006, Plaintiff A owned 663 square meters of H forest, 457 square meters of I forest, and Plaintiff B owned 539 square meters of J forest, respectively, through a partition consultation on co-owned property on June 7, 2006.

(hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant lands”) D.

On March 3, 2011, the Defendant: (a) granted permission to convert the forest of two lots, such as H and I, to the said Plaintiff at the Plaintiff’s request; (b) revoked the permission to divert the forest of J as to the Plaintiff B on April 23, 2012; and (c) granted the Plaintiff a development charge of KRW 129,760,200 pursuant to the Restitution of Development Gains Act (hereinafter “Development Gains Refund Act”) on June 4, 2013 (hereinafter “Development Gains Refund Act”); (c) imposed a development charge of KRW 73,329,30 on the Plaintiff; (d) imposed a development charge of KRW 68,579,00 on the Plaintiff B (hereinafter “each disposition of this case”); and (e) imposed a development charge of KRW 56,430,90 on the Plaintiff.

【Unsatisfyal grounds for recognition】Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-1 through 7, Eul evidence 1-2-1, 2, 3, 5-1 through 8, 6, 7-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The summary of the plaintiffs' assertion 1) Since permission for conversion of a mountainous district against the plaintiffs was revoked and did not exist from the beginning, it cannot be deemed a development project subject to imposition of development charges. The defendant is entitled to imposition of development charges under Article 10 (3) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Development Gains Exchange Act, which stipulates the time when permission for a development project is revoked as one of the time of imposition termination (hereinafter "Enforcement Decree of this case").