1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. This part of the judgment of this court is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and this part of the judgment is based on the reasoning of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff asserted that ① public officials in charge of Goyang Broadcasting expressed their opinion that they will not impose the preservation charge on the construction act of this case in accordance with the result of the consultation stated in the second reply of this case, and trust and trust that they would not impose the preservation charge on the plaintiff. Thus, the disposition imposing the preservation charge of this case against the public officials in charge of Goyang Broadcasting violates the principle of trust protection, and ② the disposition imposing the preservation charge of this case is unlawful in violation of the principle of imposing the preservation charge of this case. ② The disposition imposing the preservation charge of this case is unlawful since the public officials in charge of Goyang Broadcasting did not confirm the second reply of this case and confirmed only the first reply of this case and did not reflect the result of consultation and did not reflect the result of consultation. ③ The construction act of this case was constructed with a size less than the existing building, so it did not change the form and quality of land, and thus, the disposition imposing the preservation charge of this case was null and void because the defendant suffered benefit without legal grounds due to the imposition of the preservation charge of this case and caused losses to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the high-speed market received KRW 49,914,270 in total from the Plaintiff and refunded KRW 20,271,630 among them to the Plaintiff after the imposition of the instant preservation charges. However, this is merely merely a process of imposing the preservation charges with the authority delegated by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and it is merely a process of imposing the preservation charges. The preservation charges collected from the Plaintiff are 29,642.