1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposing development charges of KRW 299,131,80 against the Plaintiff on August 2, 2017 is revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 23, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the development project on November 22, 2016, with permission for the development of business facilities (offices) and multi-family housing, with respect to three parcels, including Dongcheon-dong 185-11, and 2,108 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On August 2, 2017, the Defendant imposed development charges of KRW 299,131,800, calculated as follows, on the basis of the actual purchase price as at the starting point of the land of this case on the Plaintiff, and on the basis of the average of the values appraised by two appraisal corporations:

(hereinafter referred to as "the Disposition in this case". Separate Calculation Details. Development gains (i) 25% of development gains (i) 1,196,527,200 development gains (ii) 1,196,527,207 end land price (i) 7,953,647,445 deducted amount (ii) 6,757,120,238 land price at the start of 4,600,363, 363, 371, 166 normal increase in land price 371,471, 194 development gains 765,070,560, 1,020,215,318 [Calculation of development charges] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 (including additional number), Eul evidence 1, and the purport of all pleadings and arguments as a whole.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The defendant asserted that the disposition of this case is lawful on the grounds of the grounds of the disposition and the relevant statutes, the plaintiff asserted that the disposition of this case is unlawful on the following grounds.

The appraisal of two appraisal corporations on the land at the time of the imposition of development charges is first, it is difficult to trust the results of the appraisal because the correction values of time adjustment, regional factors and other factors (hereinafter “other factors”) excluding individual factors are the same, excluding the results of the appraisal. Second, there is no legal basis for the correction of other factors, and it is unclear whether the appraisal precedents have been properly selected or not, and it is unclear whether the appraisal precedents have been properly selected or not, and there is no specific basis for the calculation, so the appraisal values of other factors are excessively calculated to 1.75 in terms of the assessment values calculated on the basis thereof.