1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and rearrangement project association established for the reconstruction and rearrangement project of the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”), and the Defendant approved the implementation of the instant rearrangement project on June 10, 201, and announced it on the same day.

B. On September 15, 2015, the Defendant imposed loan charges (hereinafter “instant loan charges”) as shown in the attached Table 2 on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied and used the maintenance period facilities listed in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant maintenance infrastructure”) from August 201 to December 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 5, Eul evidence 3 (including each number if there is a serial number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. Pursuant to Articles 47(1) and 32(1) of the State Property Act and Article 32(1) of the Public Property Act, the Defendant may enter into a loan agreement with the Plaintiff, and accordingly, collect rent.

However, since the Defendant did not enter into a loan agreement with the Plaintiff on the instant fundamental infrastructure, the notification of the imposition of the instant loan is unlawful.

B. Article 32(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents provides that "where a rearrangement project is deemed to have obtained authorization, permission, etc. under other Acts pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2), the fees imposed for the relevant authorization, permission, etc. shall be exempted in accordance with the relevant Acts or municipal ordinances of Cities/Dos, and the fees or occupation fees for the use or occupation of the relevant State-owned or public land shall be exempted." Thus, the instant rent shall

Nevertheless, since the Defendant imposed the instant loan charges on the Plaintiff, the notification of the imposition of the instant loan charges is unlawful.

3. Determination

(a) State-owned miscellaneous properties under the provisions of Articles 31 and 32(3) of the State Properties Act and Article 75(1) of the Forestry Act; and