1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The Plaintiff sought revocation of the imposition disposition of charges for school site charges as of May 13, 2013, the imposition disposition of charges for school site charges as of July 8, 2013, and the imposition disposition of charges for school site charges as of July 25, 2013, as stated in the purport of the claim. The court of first instance dismissed the claim for confirmation as to the invalidation of the imposition disposition of charges for school site charges as of May 13, 2013 and accepted the remainder of the claim.

Since only the plaintiff appealed, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the disposition of imposition of charges for school site charges on May 13, 2013.

2. The court's explanation concerning this part of the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance is the same as the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance under Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Whether the first disposition in this case is null and void

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion No. 1 of this case is void as it has a serious and obvious defect as follows.

1) The instant disposition is not only against the decision of inconsistency with the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, but also against the legal provision of this case which was applied by the decision of inconsistency with the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. The Defendant’s first disposition of this case is unlawful based on the calculation of school site charges by treating 7 households in cash liquidation which does not affect the increase in the number of households as the same as the remaining 25 households in general, and taking it as the basis of the calculation of school site charges. It goes against the principle of equality, since it causes discrimination against the implementer of the housing reconstruction project on an unreasonable basis, which is irrelevant to the degree of causing the need to secure school facilities, and it is against the principle of equality, imposing school site charges on the person who caused the need to secure school facilities due to the progress of the development project, and there is no change in the number of households in the relevant project area after the implementation of the rearrangement project.