1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established to engage in real estate development, supply, lease, wholesale and retail business, and sales business of clothing.

B. On February 19, 2013, the Defendant imposed an overconcentration charge of KRW 9,953,915,080 on the buildings of 20 stories above 98,95.74 square meters above ground and 5 stories below underground (hereinafter “instant buildings”) constructed by the Plaintiff on the ground of 60-8,754 square meters above the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Geumcheon-gu, pursuant to Article 12 of the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Planning Act.

(See Evidence No. 8-4, hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 8-4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that 501, 601, and 701 of the instant building (hereinafter “instant facilities”) were gratuitously transferred to the Korea Industrial Complex Corporation.

This constitutes a donation to the State pursuant to Article 33(8) of the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act and Article 43-2(3)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

However, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition without reducing or exempting the charges pursuant to Article 13 of the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Planning Act and Article 17 subparagraph 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

Therefore, the part that did not reduce overconcentration charges with respect to the instant facilities among the instant dispositions is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) The Korea Industrial Complex Corporation (the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, the Minister of Knowledge Economy, the Minister of Knowledge Economy prior to the change of the name, and the Minister of Knowledge Economy, donated the instant facilities from the Plaintiff to use them for the purpose of supporting occupant enterprises, such as expansion of infrastructure in industrial complexes, etc. In light of the purport of the overconcentration charges system, there is no reason to view the gratuitous concession to the Korea Industrial Complex Corporation differently from the donation to the State, and the Plaintiff may determine the counterpart of the instant facilities