1. The Defendant’s KRW 1,437,261,093 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from October 2, 2014 to March 29, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established on October 1, 2009 by comprehensively succeeding each of the rights and obligations after dissolution and integration of the former Korea Land Corporation and the Korea National Housing Corporation for the purpose of improving people’s residential life and efficiently using national land based on the Korea Land and Housing Corporation.

B. On January 25, 2002, the Plaintiff obtained approval from the Defendant Mayor for the housing site development project for the Nam-gu Seoul metropolitan area A (hereinafter “instant project district”), and the Defendant Mayor issued a disposition of imposition of charges for metropolitan transport facility charges of KRW 5,364,376,000 (hereinafter “instant charges”) against the Plaintiff on April 15, 2002 under subparagraph 1 of Article 11 and Article 11-4 of the former Special Act on the Management of Metropolitan Transport in Metropolitan Areas (amended by Act No. 6852, Dec. 302; hereinafter “former Metropolitan Transport Act”) on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes a person who implements a housing site development project under the Housing Site Development Promotion Act within a metropolitan area for which the metropolitan transport plan was formulated and publicly announced (hereinafter “instant disposition of imposition”).

C. Upon the Plaintiff’s application, the Defendant Mayor allowed installment payments of the instant charges, and accordingly, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant the charges of KRW 1,072,875,200 on May 10, 2002, and KRW 1,609,312,80 on April 24, 2003, and KRW 2,682,18,00 on April 26, 2004.

After that, on September 30, 2010, the housing site development project was completed. On August 27, 2014, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to return all charges paid by the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff constituted erroneous payment if the details of the project plan at the time of the instant disposition and the cost of installing arterial facilities are different from the construction cost of the housing site development project at the time of completion of the instant disposition.

Accordingly, on October 1, 2014, Defendant Mayor issued a disposition to refund the full amount of the instant charges paid by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) and the Defendant follows.