1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 25, 2010, the Plaintiffs obtained permission from the head of the Gu, who was the wife, for the development of a site for Class I neighborhood living facilities (retailing facilities (retailing the instant land) (retailing the wife population C 693, D forest land 2,690 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) with respect to the first-class neighborhood living facilities (retailing the wife population D 3,383 square meters following a change of land category following a change of land category; hereinafter collectively “the instant land”) (hereinafter “instant project”).

B. The Plaintiffs implemented the instant project according to the aforementioned development permit and newly built Class 1 neighborhood living facilities (retailing stores) on the instant land. On May 31, 2012, the Plaintiffs received the completion inspection from the head of the Gu, who is the wife, on the instant land.

C. On November 2, 2012, the Defendant calculated the predetermined amount to impose development charges according to the instant project at KRW 175,288,240 and notified the Plaintiffs of the scheduled imposition of development charges.

The Plaintiffs filed a request for review prior to the notification of development charges with the purport that the costs for the theft and soil and sand transportation should be recognized as development costs, and the land price at the time of termination of the instant land would be corrected.

On February 26, 2013, the Defendant accepted the part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the cost of theft against scarcity was recognized as development costs and imposed development charges of KRW 171,027,350 on the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the above disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Land Expropriation Committee on May 20, 2013.

The Central Land Tribunal has designated a specific use area of the instant land as a natural green belt and a production green belt. In such a case, it is necessary to select a comparative standard site corresponding to each specific use area and calculate the land price at the time of completion. However, the Defendant selected only one comparative standard site, which is a natural green belt, and calculated the land price at the time of termination of the instant land, on the ground that it was unlawful. As such, the Defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of development charges on the date of February 26, 2013.