1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Details of the instant disposition

A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction project partnership established under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents to implement a housing reconstruction project of 13,717,80 square meters in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-si B (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”).

B. Around June 2016, the Plaintiff conducted general sale of apartment houses built in the instant improvement zone, and the Defendant Seocheon-si imposed the charges for school sites on the 143 households among the general housing units sold in lots on three occasions pursuant to Articles 5(1) and 5-2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Securing, etc. of School Sites (hereinafter “School Sites Act”) and Article 5-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act as follows.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The disposal date of the household amount due was the first day of the payment date of the disposal date and the amount of nine household units due to the settlement of cash and the settlement of cash on August 31, 2016 and the final reduction of or exemption from 89 household units due to the settlement of cash on August 31, 2016, KRW 262,751,720, Sept. 2, 2016; KRW 63,473,600 on September 27, 2016; KRW 75,636,00 on November 3, 2016; KRW 75,636,000 on January 24, 2017; and KRW 401,861,320 on February 143, 2017.

C. The Plaintiff paid the total amount of KRW 401,861,320 to Defendant Gyeonggi-do on the date of payment indicated in the table of the above paragraph.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On the grounds delineated below the plaintiff's assertion, the disposition of this case is null and void because its illegality is serious and clear. As such, the defendant Gyeonggi-do is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the charges for school site and its delay damages as unjust enrichment return.

A. The charges for school sites are for securing financial resources for the purpose of securing school sites or expanding schools [Article 2 subparag. 3 of the former School Sites Act (amended by Act No. 14604, Mar. 21, 2017; hereinafter “former School Sites Act”)]. The defendant Busan City did not review the necessity prior to the disposition of the instant case, and in fact, the rearrangement zone in the instant case.