1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 12, 201, the Plaintiff completed the pertinent development project plan for the tourist farm development project (hereinafter “instant development project”) with the approval from the Defendant on the Dong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City B Day (hereinafter “instant land”) (hereinafter “instant land”). On June 17, 201, the Plaintiff obtained approval of the use of buildings from the Defendant on June 17, 2016.

B. On January 2, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to impose development charges of KRW 118,788,170 on the Plaintiff regarding the instant development project.

(hereinafter “Disposition to impose the instant development charges”). (c)

On April 3, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed to the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Land Expropriation Committee. However, on October 26, 2017, the Plaintiff was adjudicated to dismiss the request.

[Reasons for Recognition: Descriptions in Evidence A Nos. 1, 2, and 3]

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant calculated the instant development charges based on the final land price at the time of completion calculated by selecting the land of the case as the comparative standard for the land of the Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “IBB standard site”) and D (hereinafter “IB standard site”). However, the above comparative standard site cannot be a legitimate standard land price because the actual use of the instant land is not similar to that of the instant land, and it is reasonable to select the land as E or IB as F in the Y-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul, as the actual use of the instant land is similar.

Therefore, the imposition of the instant development charge, which is calculated through the place of termination according to the aforementioned mistakenly selected comparative standard, is unlawful.

3. The details of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as shown in attached statutes;

4. Whether the disposition of the development charges of this case is illegal

A. Article 10(1) of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 15305, Dec. 26, 2017) regarding the selection of comparative standard land provides that “The value of the land subject to imposition at the time of completion of imposition to set the standards for imposition of development charges shall be the officially announced value of the standard land, which is the most similar to the land subject to imposition at the time of imposition and use.”