1. It is confirmed that the Defendant’s disposition to impose the development charges on the Plaintiff on August 9, 2010 under attached Form 1 is invalid.

2.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The I Housing Association (the name of the association on November 20, 2001 changed to the J Housing Association; hereinafter “instant association”) is an association under the former Housing Construction Promotion Act, which obtained the authorization of establishment on October 16, 2000, for the purpose of newly constructing 182 households of three apartment houses (hereinafter “instant development project”) on the non-K-si and four parcels of land outside K, 7,479 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On October 15, 2001, the instant association obtained a new approval for temporary use on June 30, 2004 after obtaining an approval for a housing construction project plan from the Defendant.

C. On January 14, 2005, the Defendant determined the project subject to the imposition of development charges of the instant development project and imposed development charges of KRW 348,720,460 to the instant association, but on June 28, 2005, the Defendant corrected the calculation of development costs and imposed development charges of KRW 365,829,580 (payment period: July 14, 2005).

On August 9, 2010, the Defendant: (a) divided the development charges imposed on the instant association, as shown in attached Table 1, to the Plaintiffs, who were members of the instant association, for the reason that “the instant association was dissolved without paying the development charges; and (b) imposed the development charges by KRW 5,716,090 on each of the instant associations.”

(hereinafter "Disposition in this case"). . [Ground of recognition] The Disposition in this case is without dispute, Gap's 1 through 5, 8, 9, 12, 13 (including virtual numbers), Eul's 1, 5 through 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

2. The description;

3. Whether the instant disposition is null and void

A. The plaintiffs' assertion of this case is null and void since the following serious defects exist.

(1) The instant disposition against the Plaintiffs, other than the instant association, is unlawful, since the instant association was closed only and has not been dissolved until now.

(2) L and M land purchased by the instant association was purchased by giving KRW 2.7 billion from N, a non-member of the instant association, and the land purchase cost was deducted.