1. The Defendant’s disposition imposing user fees of KRW 893,670,640 against the Plaintiff on April 13, 2017 shall be revoked.

2...

Details of the disposition

The Defendant is the managing authority of 12,686.7m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) out of 8,044.74m2 among 8,989m2, Nam-gu, Incheon, Nam-gu, Incheon, the State property of which is 440-8m2, and of 14,175m2 among 14,175.9m2.

The Plaintiff is a project implementer that implements a residential environment improvement project (hereinafter “instant project”) in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan Council 330, Yongsan-dong 528 Won-dong.

On December 31, 2007, the head of the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City approved the project implementation of the project in this case on November 23, 2015, and the land in this case was included in the residential environment improvement zone under the project in this case.

On April 13, 2017, the Defendant imposed a royalty of KRW 893,670,640 on the instant land from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2017, pursuant to Articles 30 and 32 of the State Property Act on the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “Disposition” (hereinafter “instant disposition”). Inasmuch as there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and 37 (including branch numbers), Eul’s evidence Nos. 3, and the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as a whole, the land in this case is a general property under the State Property Act and is located within a residential environment improvement zone, and thus, it was transferred free of charge to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 68(1) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 13912, Jan. 27, 2016; hereinafter “former Act”).

Even if not, since permission to use most of the instant land is deemed to have been granted in accordance with the former Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas, etc., the Defendant cannot impose usage fees on the instant land.

However, the Defendant imposed usage fees on the Plaintiff on the instant land on the premise that the instant land was an administrative property under the State Property Act, and thus, the instant disposition should be revoked as unlawful.

It shall be as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

Judgment

The State Property Act.