1. The Defendant’s refusal to refund additional dues against the Plaintiff on September 2, 2014 confirms that the disposition against the Plaintiff is invalid.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff constructed the old-man apartment on the ground of the land of 656-67 and 10 lots, Seo-gu, Daejeon.

B. In accordance with the former Infrastructure Charges Act (amended by Act No. 9051, Mar. 28, 2008; hereinafter “former Infrastructure Charges Act”), the Defendant imposed the following infrastructure charges and additional charges on the Plaintiff.

Additional charges for infrastructure charges on the date of imposition shall be KRW 10,00,000 on March 16, 201 - KRW 367,465,010 on January 17, 2013

C. On January 15, 2013, March 17, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 527,04,60, and additional 367,465,010 to the Defendant via two occasions.

The plaintiff newly constructed the old end apartment, donated a road site, which is an infrastructure, constructed and packaged a road, and paid the water and sewage charges.

Accordingly, on August 18, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the return of the infrastructure charges and additional charges that were paid pursuant to Article 17 of the former Infrastructure Charges Act and Article 15(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21038, Sep. 25, 2008; hereinafter the same).

E. On September 2, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that “it shall refund KRW 527,044,60 of the infrastructure charges already paid” but the additional dues KRW 367,465,010 shall not be refunded.”

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case"). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is obligated to refund the infrastructure charges that the plaintiff has paid. The defendant, accordingly, is also obligated to refund the infrastructure charges that the plaintiff paid to the plaintiff, so long as the defendant refunded the infrastructure charges that the plaintiff paid to the plaintiff.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not return the additional dues to the Plaintiff.