1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of “determination on the plaintiff’s argument” as to this case. As such, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion of the trial

(a) The criteria for imposing development charges for the plaintiff's assertion shall be the officially assessed individual land price, and the standard land price shall be the land which is the most similar to the target land and utilization

B. Determination 1) According to Article 10(3) of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 12245, Jan. 14, 2014; hereinafter “Development Gains Refund Act”) with respect to the determination of land price as of the starting point, the land price as of the starting point shall be the aggregate of the normal land price increase, and where it is objectively recognized that the purchase price is a normal transaction price, the land price as of the starting point may be the starting point. In this case, after receiving the notice of the scheduled imposition of development charges from the request for review before notice submitted to the Defendant on March 18, 2013, the Plaintiff requested that the market price as of the starting point be applied to the purchase price before notice, and the Defendant determined the land price as of the starting point pursuant to Article 10(3)5 of the Development Gains Refund Act based on the sales contract and the certificate of deposit without passbook submitted by the Plaintiff (Article 6). In light of the content of the starting point and the background leading up to the application of the purchase price, Article 214.