1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On December 31, 2013, the Plaintiff obtained approval of the district plan for a housing zone for the construction of happy housing (hereinafter “instant district plan”) under Article 2013-904 of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport’s notification. The main contents are as follows.

1) Name: The location of a housing zone 2) for the construction of a happy house: the area of 120-1, 268, 296-13, 3, and 25,900 square meters in Seodaemun-gu, Mapo-gu, Seoul: the project implementation period: the date of designation public notice (from August 28, 2013 to December 31, 2017) of the district designation public notice (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”): the Plaintiff occupied the area of 134-2, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, a railroad facility site in the said district in order to implement the said project (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”).

On May 3, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff should pay KRW 137,485,290 as the occupation charges in the year 2016 on the site of the said railroad facility for the instant project, and KRW 5,490 as the average price fluctuation rate was determined on June 10, 2016 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant imposition of occupation charges”).

[Ground] The Plaintiff’s assertion of the legitimacy of the instant disposition of imposition of occupation and use fees of public housing is governed by the Special Act on Public Housing, and when a public housing zone plan is approved under the Special Act on Public Housing, it is deemed that permission for occupation and use under Article 42 of the Railroad Enterprise Act has been granted pursuant to Article 18(1) of the Special Act on Public Housing. Article 18(3) of the Special Act on Public Housing provides that where authorization and use fees under other Acts are deemed granted under the aforesaid other Acts, a license tax, usage fees, etc. imposed under the relevant Acts are exempted. Thus, the instant disposition of imposition of occupation and use fees of public housing is unlawful.

It is as shown in the attached Form of relevant statutes.

Judgment

The following are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of each of the above evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings: