1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 28, 2014, the Plaintiff obtained a building permit with respect to each of the instant land as a site for the purpose of a new construction project for accommodation facilities, which is a kind of business, and obtained approval for the use of a building with respect to 2,589 square meters of the total floor area of 8 square meters on November 17, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant development project”). (b)

On June 2016, the Defendant: (a) selected Jeju-si land (hereinafter “the instant standard land”) as the standard land price; (b) calculated KRW 232,122,730 as the development charges on each of the instant land as stated below based on the officially announced land price of the said standard land; and (c) notified the Plaintiff that the said development charges will be imposed around that time.

(1) Calculation details: (1) The land price as at the time of completion of the imposition is 162,14,389, 11,925,617 development costs 382,164,4683 (i) development gains (i) 928,490,944 (ii) development charges x 25% x 232,122,730

C. On this issue, the Plaintiff filed a request for an examination prior to the notification that “the land price at the time of completion of the imposition was high by selecting a reference land with different levels of imposition and surrounding environment and development.”

However, on September 30, 2016, the Defendant decided to dismiss the above request for re-determination by stating that it is appropriate to select land similar to the current use of each of the instant land as the reference land. The Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 232,122,730 in total of the development charges on each of the instant land as scheduled on December 19, 2016.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion falls under the business subject to the imposition of development charges under the Restitution of Development Gains Act (hereinafter “Development Gains Restitution Act”); however, the Defendant is at the time of completion of imposition.