1. The Defendant’s imposition of development charges of KRW 857,519,770, imposed on the Plaintiff on February 17, 2016 exceeds KRW 486,808,110.

1. When calculating the publicly assessed individual land price in September 17, 2015 ( September 9, 2015), the surface of the road, among the land characteristics, was assessed as the same at the time when the starting point of the road site where the location of the disposition is located, as of the starting point of the road on the site of the location of the road (land size) ends (as of April 9, 2015).

End Date ( September 17, 2015) 1,417 E Maz. 551 F Maz. 605 Maz. 605 Maz. 245 Maz. Maz. 551 Maz.

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of each land indicated below (hereinafter referred to as “each land of this case” and specified as “B”).

B. G obtained approval from the Plaintiff for the use of each of the instant lands on April 9, 2015, with permission from the Defendant for the construction of gas filling stations (hereinafter “instant gas filling stations”), which is a project for land category change and against each of the instant lands, on each of the instant lands, and obtained approval for the use of each of the instant lands on September 17, 2015.

C. On February 17, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing development charges of KRW 857,519,770 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) calculated as stated in the attached development charges calculation statement, and “the land value as of the starting point” was calculated by adding the increase in the land price from the base date of the relevant published land price to the starting point of imposition pursuant to the main sentence of Article 10(3) of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (hereinafter “Development Gains Refund Act”) to the officially assessed individual land price of the instant land in the year 2015, in which the starting point of imposition falls, and “the starting point of termination” was calculated as the reference land price pursuant to Article 10(1) of the same Act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1, 34, 37 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is unlawful in calculating the land price as of the starting point of each of the instant lands, and the conditions on the surface of the land B out of each of the instant lands shall enter into the road in 2012.