All appeals are dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The plaintiff and defendant's grounds of appeal are examined together (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined as follows.

According to Articles 11 subparag. 2, 11-2(2)4, and 11-3(1)1 of the former Special Act on the Management of Intercity Transport in Metropolitan Areas (amended by Act No. 11366, Feb. 22, 2012; hereinafter “Special Act”), the charges for intercity transport facilities in the instant urban development project for the instant urban development project shall be calculated as “[standard development cost per square meter x development rate x development area x (area ratio ± (area ratio ± 200)] x 0.5”.

B. In calculating the charges for metropolitan transport facilities to be imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff, an implementer of an urban development project, the application of the remaining area, excluding the area of a site for gratuitous reversion excluded pursuant to Article 16-2(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Special Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22627, Jan. 17, 201) is lawful, with respect to the development area of the above-mentioned formula, from the total area of the

C. However, according to the provisions of Article 16-2 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Special Act, the floor area ratio (the total floor area of the site area) among the above calculation formula shall be applied to the site ratio, and since the ratio of the total floor area of the apartment among the main complex facilities to the area of the site for main complex facilities shall be applied to the area of the site for main complex, the portion on

2. Examining the relevant legal principles and records, contrary to what is alleged in the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal, each of the above provisions of the Special Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof cannot be deemed to violate the Constitution’s property rights and equality

In addition, the above judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the calculation criteria for metropolitan transport facility charges under the above provisions, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant.