The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant agreement was revoked as it was concluded by mistake for the following reasons.

① The decision of inconsistency with the Constitution regarding Article 5(1)5 proviso of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Securing, etc. of School Sites (amended by Act No. 13006, Jan. 20, 2015) was rendered due to the fact that: (a) the Constitutional Court: (b) excluded only the portion of development projects falling under the case of selling the existing residents, land, and buildings in the rearrangement project area subject to the imposition of charges for school sites to a third party; and (c) did not stipulate any provision excluding the portion of development projects, the number of households of which is not increased compared with the existing ones, by selling them to a third party, from the subject of cash settlement; and (d) in relation to housing redevelopment project implemented by

There is insufficient evidence to prove that the charges for school sites to be paid by the plaintiff are exempted or reduced.

② The Plaintiff entered into the instant agreement to pay the Defendant the expenses incurred in expanding school buildings in the vicinity of the project site, thereby not only could it be exempted from the charges for school sites, but also considered positive impacts such as improving the school environment in the redevelopment improvement project area where the Plaintiff is located and raising the real estate value.

③ In light of the circumstances that the Plaintiff only paid school site charges according to the disposition of imposition of charges for school site charges and did not dispute the liability for the payment of administrative litigation, etc., the instant agreement was concluded to donate expenses incurred in expanding school buildings of a specific school instead of bearing charges for school site charges, and paid the charges for school site charges to the Defendant accordingly.