1. The Defendant’s KRW 66,728,300 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from January 5, 2018 to November 20, 2018, and the following.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established by C law. The Plaintiff purchased the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Western Building E and Fdong Building from D on June 17, 2016 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 23, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as “each building of this case” and individually classified as “ligate” and “Dong library”). B.

The Defendant’s respective years for each of the instant buildings to the Plaintiff as follows:

7. On the basis of the owner of the building 31. The traffic inducement charge was imposed, and the plaintiff paid it.

The imposition and payment amount of charges for causing traffic congestion in the imposition year (the period of imposition) 26,34,980 won in total by the year of the Plaintiff’s payment date (from August 1, 2015 to July 31, 2016) 16,281,91,910 won in total, 42,616,890 won in October 31, 2016 (from January 1, 2016 to July 31, 2017), 24,111,410 won in total, 24,111, 410 won in total, 201. 31 October 31, 2017, in which there is no dispute over the facts that there is no dispute over the charges for causing traffic congestion in the imposition year (the grounds for recognition), Gap, 1, 2, 1, 2, Eul, 2, and 3 (including various numbers), and the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the charge for causing traffic congestion imposed on the plaintiff exempt from the charge under Article 8 of the C Act is serious and clear, and thus, the defendant asserts that the sum of the charges for causing traffic congestion, which the plaintiff received from the plaintiff without any legal ground, should be refunded as unjust enrichment from the date of full payment to the date of full payment.

The Defendant has the responsibility to pay charges for causing traffic congestion to DBD during the imposition period from August 1, 2015 to June 16, 2016. However, Article 23 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act not only shall handle to a large number of persons liable for payment the determination of charges and the imposition of charges, such as the preparation and delivery of notice for payment, in a short period every year, but also shall set a certain date for imposition in order to ensure the unity and predictability of the imposition administration in consideration of the situation from which the owner of facilities subject to the imposition of charges has changed frequently.