1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 10, 2001, Plaintiff A obtained a building permit from the head of Sungnam-si, the head of the Gu with respect to the land area of 659 square meters, 637 square meters, 637 square meters, and the main purpose of which is a detached house, and the owner of the building as Plaintiff A with respect to the land of 2,380 square meters prior to the division of the Plaintiffs’ joint ownership (hereinafter “land prior to the division”).

B. On November 9, 2003, the Plaintiffs filed a report on the commencement of construction with the above three construction permission, and the following day was divided into the area of 637 square meters (695 square meters after the division, merger, etc.), 637 square meters prior to D, 659 square meters prior to E, and 447 square meters prior to F.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”) shall be specified with the parcel number, and D land shall be referred to as the “instant land”).

On April 5, 2010, the Plaintiffs obtained permission from the head of Sung-nam Si to change the purpose of the main use of land C and E from a detached house to a Class I neighborhood living facility (retail store).

The Plaintiffs were approved by the head of Sung-nam Si/Gun/Gu on February 14, 2014 after they newly built a Class 1 neighborhood living facility (retailing store) on the land of this case and newly built a detached house on the land of this case.

E. On September 26, 2014, following the procedures for a request for review prior to the prior notice and notification, the Defendant: (a) deemed that one development project was implemented on September 26, 2014; and (b) imposed development charges on the Plaintiffs pursuant to Article 4(1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26302, Jun. 1, 2015; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Development Gains Refund Act”); (c) the land in this case was connected to C and E; and (d) the sum of respective land areas was 2,041 square meters (=69 square meters 695 square meters 709 square meters).

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The Disposition in this case is without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through 10 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs.