1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the intervention in the lawsuit.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the part added or added below, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

At the bottom of the 7th judgment of the first instance, the following shall be added:

While the Plaintiff asserts that the Railroad Service Act and the Railroad Construction Act provide for “railroad facilities” as above, it does not need to change the concept. However, in light of the above argument, it is difficult to explain the reasons why only the railroad facilities under the Railroad Act, other than the Railroad Construction Act, are exempted from the charges under the Urban Traffic Improvement Act.

The following shall be added to 8 last parallels of the judgment of the first instance, and the 9th one parallel (C) shall be added to "D".

C) The scope of “urban railroad facilities” was expanded by the amendment of the Urban Railroad Act by Act No. 12216, Jan. 7, 2014. In other words, the Do facilities refer to “urban railroad tracks, historic and service facilities (logistics facilities, transfer facilities, convenience facilities, etc.)” before the amendment of the said Act (Article 3 subparag. 3(a) prior to the amendment), and “urban railroad tracks, history and station facilities (including distribution facilities, transfer facilities, and sales facilities, service facilities, neighboring living facilities, accommodation facilities, cultural and assembly facilities, etc. located in buildings such as history)” (Article 2 subparag. 3(a) of the amended Urban Railroad Act). The reason for the amendment of the said Act is to expand the scope of urban railroad facilities so that various incidental projects using urban railroad facilities can be carried out (Article 2 subparag. 3(a) of the said Act (Article 8-2). Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the charges imposed pursuant to the Urban Traffic Improvement Act on “urban Railroad facilities” located in the same building as “urban Railroad facilities” should be exempted from the said Act.