1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s KRW 5,474,054,50 against the Plaintiff on December 19, 2016.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 14, 2007, the Plaintiff imposed prior development charges on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Defendant’s prior development charges”) with a total floor area of 183,989,457 square meters on the ground of 67,287 square meters on the land outside Yongsan-si, Suwon-si, and the Defendant’s 67,287 square meters on November 14, 2007.

2) A project to build the project (hereinafter referred to as “the first project of this case”).

(2) On May 12, 2011, the Defendant obtained approval for the housing construction project plan, and obtained approval for the use of the above apartment complex from the Defendant on June 6, 2010. (2) On May 12, 2011, the Defendant imposed development charges of KRW 29,04,693,100 on the instant apartment project (hereinafter “instant first prior disposition”) on the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of the instant first prior disposition on July 11, 201.

On January 13, 2012, the Central Land Tribunal had the Plaintiff directly install infrastructure equivalent to the infrastructure charges worth KRW 73,383,069,50 in total under the conditions of approval for the project. Accordingly, the Plaintiff directly installed eight infrastructure, such as road and landscape green areas, and transferred ownership at the time of acceptance through a completion inspection only without any separate procedure for settlement (89%) and one river (hereinafter “river L; hereinafter “river”) being implemented is expected to be donated at the time of acceptance as completed, but it is harsh for the Plaintiff to not recognize all of the development costs solely on the ground that the Plaintiff was not equipped with a detailed statement of calculation of the cost of direct installation and evidentiary documents on the cost of completion. The Defendant should review the publicly notified infrastructure contributions, the value of the donated land, etc., and other objectively proven expenses, and determine development costs.

3) According to the purport of the instant judgment, the Defendant included a total of KRW 94,955,016,889 (including other expenses of KRW 73,891,194,386) in accordance with the purport of the instant judgment.