1. The Defendant imposed charges for causing traffic congestion on the Plaintiff on October 10, 2017, KRW 4,020,750 in the imposition of KRW 6,159,430.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is operating a “Ag-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g

B. On October 10, 2017, the Defendant imposed a disposition (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) on the Plaintiff to impose charges for causing traffic congestion on the instant golf club located in accordance with Articles 36 and 37 of the Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act (hereinafter “Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act”) and attached Tables 3-2 and 3-3-3(1)4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Traffic Improvement Act (hereinafter “attached Table”) on the Plaintiff for imposing charges for causing traffic congestion on the instant golf club located in the instant golf club (including the facilities listed in attached Table 1; hereinafter “instant golf club”).

C. Meanwhile, in calculating the above traffic inducement charges, the Defendant calculated the traffic inducement charges on some of the following facilities (hereinafter “facilities of this case”) out of the club of this case as follows:

1) Facilities listed in the annexed Table 1 for the purpose of " golf driving range": A city with a population of not less than 300,000 and less than 50,000 by applying the items of " golf driving range" in subparagraph 1 (c) of the annexed Table of this case.

(2) Facilities listed in the attached table 1: 1.02 of a traffic inducing coefficient shall be applied by applying the items of “general restaurant” in subparagraph 1 (b) of the attached Table 1 of this case to the facilities listed as “other neighborhood living facilities” in the attached table 1 of the attached Table 1 of this case: 1.02 of a traffic inducing coefficient by applying the items of “other neighborhood living facilities” in subparagraph 1 (e) of the attached Table

D. On January 2, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted that the calculation of the charges for causing traffic congestion on the instant facilities was illegal, and filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition with the Standing Committee of Sejong-do. However, on February 28, 2018, the Plaintiff was dismissed.

【Ground of recognition” has no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3 evidence, Eul's 2, 5, and 6 evidence, and oral arguments.