1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 31, 2014, the Plaintiff obtained a building permit (hereinafter “instant building permit”) from the head of the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City branch office (hereinafter “head of the branch office”) to newly construct Class II neighborhood living facilities (manufacturing facility) on the 2,912 square meters of land in Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Seo-gu (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. Since then, the Plaintiff requested the head of the branch office to revoke the instant building permit, and the head of the branch office accepted it and revoked the instant building permit ex officio on March 5, 2015.

C. On June 10, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the scheduled imposition of development charges of KRW 332,083,940, and issued a disposition imposing development charges (hereinafter “instant disposition”) with the estimated amount notified on August 23, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 6 (including all of these items), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On the grounds delineated below the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the instant disposition should be revoked as it is unlawful.

1) In principle, where an administrative disposition is revoked, which is the premise for the imposition of development charges, (a) where an administrative disposition is revoked, the validity of the administrative disposition becomes retroactively extinct, but the former Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27745, Dec. 30, 2016); and (b) “former Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act” (hereinafter referred to as the “former Enforcement Decree

Article 10(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act stipulates that where a development project is suspended by the ex officio revocation of an administrative disposition which is the premise of the development project in violation of the above legal principles, the Defendant may impose development charges pursuant to Article 10(3)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Act because the building permit in this case was revoked as prescribed by the relevant Act, i.e. the Building Act.