The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In order to ensure that an administrative disposition is null and void as a matter of course, it is insufficient to say that there is an illegality in the disposition, and such defect is a serious violation of important parts of Acts and subordinate statutes, and objectively obvious;

In particular, even if there is room for dispute over the interpretation of the statutory provisions alone because the meaning of the disposition requirement is not clear, it is reasonable to view that the defect is objectively obvious if an administrative disposition goes against a judicial judgment without any reasonable ground, even though there is no legal obstacle in interpreting and applying the statutory provisions in accordance with such a determination.

2.(a)

Article 5 (1) (proviso)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”) provides for exceptions to the imposition of charges for school sites (hereinafter “charges”) to “assign out to existing residents and owners of land and buildings in a rearrangement project area under Article 2 subparagraph 2 (b) through (d) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents” (hereinafter “share-out portion of cooperative members”).

However, on April 24, 2014, the Constitutional Court held that it is unreasonable to impose charges on a third party because a household that is the object of cash settlement among housing constructed as a housing redevelopment project and is the object of cash settlement to a third party (hereinafter “cash settlement”) is sold to the existing owner in general, and as a result, the number of households does not increase. Therefore, it is unreasonable to exclude the cash settlement from the subject of imposition of charges.