1. The Defendant imposed development charges of the Plaintiff on January 12, 2016, KRW 666,983,970, and KRW 186,257,469.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 23, 2006, the Plaintiff was authorized to implement an urban environment rearrangement project association established for the purpose of urban environment rearrangement in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Zone B (Seoul Metropolitan Government Zone Three around Building) on August 31, 2007, and obtained authorization on the completion of the project on August 24, 2012.

B. On October 30, 2012, the Defendant determined and notified the Plaintiff of development charges of KRW 226,498,440 in accordance with the Restitution of Development Gains Act (hereinafter “Development Gains Restitution Act”).

(hereinafter “instant initial disposition”). After that, the Defendant denied that the overpopulation charge was deducted as development costs pursuant to Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the Development Gains Refund Act on January 12, 2016, deducted the transfer income tax of the land owned by the association members (Seoul Yongsan-gu C) as development costs, and corrected and notified the Plaintiff of the development charges 66,983,970 won.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the lawfulness of the instant disposition

A. The instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons as to the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

1) Since the Defendant’s initial disposition was absorption and terminated of the instant disposition, it shall be deemed that the development charges were imposed at the time of the instant disposition. According to Article 12(1) of the Development Gains Refund Act, where capital gains tax or corporate tax has been imposed on the income accrued from the transfer of land subject to the imposition of the development charges after the commencement of imposition, the amount equivalent to the time of the transfer or the completion of the imposition from among the relevant tax amount should be deducted as the development costs. Therefore, even though the amount of KRW 3,852,03,028, which is the sum stated in the “applicable transfer income tax” column in the “applicable transfer income tax” column in attached Form 1, the instant disposition was denied.