1. The Defendant’s imposition of charges for school site amounting to KRW 448,870,820 against the Plaintiff on January 25, 2019 is invalid.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is an association that implements a housing reconstruction project (hereinafter “instant project”) with the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Group B as a rearrangement zone.

B. On March 8, 2018, the Defendant calculated the number of households resulting from the implementation of the instant project as 187 households (new 678 households - rental house - previous 487 households) and imposed KRW 589,09,990 (hereinafter “first disposition”) on the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 5 of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Securing, etc. of School Sites (amended by Act No. 17255, May 19, 2020; hereinafter “former School Sites Act”).

C. Accordingly, on April 9, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Defendant to the effect that “The first disposition is revoked on the ground that there is no increase in the number of households due to the implementation of the instant project, as a result of confirming the number of households as the pre-entryer’s name as of June 26, 2008, which was the date of announcement for the designation and public inspection of the rearrangement zone.”

After receiving and reviewing the Plaintiff’s supplementary data, the Defendant: (a) partially accepted the objection on July 31, 2018; and (b) reduced 130 households (new 678 households - 4 households in rental houses - previous 617 households) by 140,229,170 won in school site charges (hereinafter “first disposition”); (c) calculated ex officio the number of existing households; and (d) imposed the reduced amount by 140,229,170 won in the first disposition; and (e) reviewed the list, etc. of prior visitors to resident registration submitted by the Plaintiff while filing an objection; and (e) imposed the reduced amount by more than the first disposition.

In the event that an administrative agency reduces ex officio a certain disposition following a review of additional data or changes in circumstances, etc., it is problematic to regard any of the original dispositions and reduced dispositions as an object of appeal litigation. However, as in this case, a defendant, an administrative agency, as a matter of course, has identified himself/herself without the initial and thorough submission of data and review process.