1. As to the Plaintiff:

(a) The imposition of charges for causing traffic congestion on November 12, 2015 shall be 30,405,440 won and b).

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff is the owner of a general steel structure on the ground of 729 (Yinjin-dong) and a concrete roof 7-story and business facility (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”).

From November 3, 2015 to the 30th of the same month, Gwangju Metropolitan City audited the Defendant’s duty to impose and collect charges for causing traffic congestion, and on the 30th of the same month notified the Defendant of the result of the audit to the effect that “The Defendant imposed the charges for causing traffic congestion of the 1.2 square meters of underground floor sales and business facilities 2,985.58 square meters of business facilities, 1,987.13 square meters of business facilities and business facilities 1,987.13 square meters of ground, 2nd floor sales and business facilities 1,736.6 square meters of business facilities and 1,736.6 square meters of business facilities from 2013 to 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the result of audit to impose and collect charges for causing traffic congestion of the total sum of 125,028,360 square meters of business facilities and business facilities.”

On November 12, 2015, the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff KRW 30,40,440 for the increased amount of the traffic inducement charges in 2015 according to the foregoing audit results. After that, the Defendant imposed KRW 24,38,420 for the increased amount of the traffic inducement charges in 2014, KRW 24,38,420 for the increased amount of the traffic inducement charges in 2013, KRW 21,839,00 for the increased amount of the traffic inducement charges in 2012, and KRW 21,839,00 for the increased amount of the traffic inducement charges in 201, respectively.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). On February 4, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition with the Gwangju Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on June 1, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] The plaintiff's assertion as to whether there is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings is legitimate. First, the building of this case is stipulated in subparagraph 1 of Article 4-2 of the Gwangju Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Reduction, etc. of Traffic Inducement Charges (hereinafter "Ordinance of this case").