The Defendant’s “Disposition Date” as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1 refers to the same list “amount notified” as the Plaintiff on each date.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation running a golf course with the name “C” in Gwangju City B.

B. As indicated in the attached list 1, the Defendant imposed charges for causing traffic congestion on the Plaintiff by applying the traffic-causing coefficient (2.12) corresponding to the driving range among neighborhood living facilities to the facilities in the above golf course (hereinafter “instant facilities”) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 11 evidence (including additional evidence) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) The charges for causing traffic congestion to the facilities of this case claimed by the plaintiff shall be calculated by applying the traffic inducement coefficient (0.96) of sports facilities, not by the traffic inducement coefficient (2.12) of the neighborhood living facilities.

As such, the error of applying the traffic inducing coefficient as above is significant and apparent, the disposition in this case is null and void.

B. Attached Form 2 of the relevant statutes is as indicated in the relevant statutes.

C. 1) Whether it is reasonable to apply the traffic inducement coefficient to a golf course is determined as follows: (a) Articles 36 and 37 of the Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act, Article 16 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act, Article 3-3 and [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act on the imposition of traffic inducement charges, and Article 3-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act on the traffic inducement coefficient, were amended several times; (b) since there is no substantial difference in the part related to the issue of the instant case, only the Acts and subordinate statutes which apply to the disposition of traffic inducement charges taken after September 26, 2017, which was made after the disposition in the instant case, shall be made within the minimum necessary scope pursuant to specific and definite provisions as an indicative administrative disposition; and (c) the interpretation of the law and regulations on