1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 3,302,639,120 against the Plaintiff on October 15, 2013 is revoked.

2...

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and improvement project association established for the purpose of implementing a housing reconstruction improvement project under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the “instant reconstruction project”) within the whole zone No. 427-1, Seocho-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project zone”).

On January 9, 2007, the defendant approved the association establishment of the plaintiff, and approved the housing reconstruction project implementation plan of the reconstruction project of this case on April 3, 2007.

Accordingly, the road of 6,247.1 square meters in the instant business area was abolished.

On April 6, 2010, the defendant approved the change of the project execution plan.

According to this, a road of 6,245.8 square meters in the instant business area (hereinafter “instant previous road”) was changed to be abolished.

The instant reconstruction project implemented by the Plaintiff began on July 22, 201, and the completion was completed on November 21, 2013.

On October 15, 2013, the Defendant imposed an amount of KRW 3,302,639,120 (including value-added tax) on the previous roads of this case on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied and used the previous roads of this case during the period of implementing a reconstruction project (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff is deemed to have obtained permission to occupy and use the previous roads of this case when the approval to implement the reconstruction project of this case was made pursuant to Article 32 (1) 3 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012; hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as a whole, and the purport of the whole arguments and records of evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number number), and the purport of the disposition of this case.

However, according to Article 32(6) of the Urban Improvement Act, if the permission to occupy and use a road is deemed to have been granted, the “fee, etc.” is imposed in return.