1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was authorized by the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on December 30, 2005 to implement an urban development project for Eunpyeong New Town (hereinafter “instant project”), which is located in the area of 3,495,248 square meters in Jin-dong and outside Jin-dong in Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul. In addition, on December 30, 2005, to formulate a development plan for the urban development zone for Eunpyeong New Town and to revise the development plan for the urban

(Public Notice of Seoul Special Metropolitan City No. 2005-448). (b)

On July 17, 2009, the Defendant imposed KRW 4,491,205,630 on the Plaintiff, on July 31, 2009, on the ground that the Plaintiff used the instant land for the instant project in relation to the land, other than 64-40 land owned by the Republic of Korea (Ministry of National Defense) in the instant project site, which is located within the instant project site, as the usage fee of the instant land during the period from the date of actual use of the land (the starting date of construction) to the date of authorization of the implementation plan ( December 30, 205) to the date of August 31, 2009, which is anticipated that the Plaintiff would acquire the ownership of the instant land through the adjudication of expropriation.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant imposition of usage fee”). C.

On April 17, 2012, the Defendant issued a notice to the Plaintiff to pay KRW 4,491,205,630 to the Plaintiff again, and issued each attachment disposition (hereinafter “each of the instant attachment dispositions”) on September 11, 2012 and September 28, 2012, with respect to each of the real estate listed in attached Tables 1 through 5 owned by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff did not comply with the notice.

[Reasons for Recognition] Class A: Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3; Evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 7; Evidence Nos. 1, 2; Evidence Nos. 8; Evidence Nos. 1 through 8; and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In imposing the instant usage fee, the Defendant’s disposition was based on the State Property Act. According to Article 22(1) and (2) of the Urban Development Act, an implementer of an urban development project expropriates or uses land, etc. necessary for an urban development project.