1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. On January 25, 2012, the Defendant imposed an imposition of KRW 56,451,170 against the Plaintiff.

1. The part citing the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the description of the circumstances leading up to the disposition, the plaintiff's assertion, and the relevant laws and regulations among the reasons for entering this case, and thus, it is identical to the description of the corresponding part of the first instance court No. 4 through No. 37. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative

2. (1) Determination is that the principle of equality, based on Article 11(1) of the Constitution, prohibits a person from arbitrarily treating the same in essence, and that not only in applying the statute, but also in applying the legislation, unreasonable discrimination should not be treated.

(2) In full view of the evidence mentioned above and the following circumstances, Article 9(1) of the Ordinance of Ansan-si does not distinguish the place where the relevant facility is installed from the ground or underground, and based on the property value of the occupied area, the occupancy charges equivalent to 3/100 for “water pipes, sewage pipes, gas pipes, utility tunnels, and similar facilities” under subparagraph 2 of the attached Table 2, and the attached Table 6 for “electric poles, electric cables, substations, transformation stations, and other similar facilities” under subparagraph 6 of the attached Table provide that the occupancy charges equivalent to more than 10/100 for “electric poles, electric cables, transformation stations, and other similar facilities,” which are more than 3 times more than 10/100, should be imposed in consideration of the difference between the occupancy and use charges and the facilities. Thus, even if the occupancy charges are different, the imposition rate is excessive and there is no reasonable ground for discrimination.

Therefore, even if a facility is installed underground, the part of the attached Table 6 of Article 9(1) of the Ordinance of Ansan-si, which provides for the imposition of occupation and use fees equivalent to 10/100 of the value of the property for the occupancy area, is null and void in violation of the principle of equality under the Constitution, and so long, the defendant's disposition of this case against

I would like to say.

(1) Article 9 (1) of the Ordinance of Ansan-si shall be attached Table.