1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B In order to create five units of warehouse and access road on the ground of 8,324 square meters (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant lands”) in total of 5 lots of land in Yangyang-gun, Gyeonggi-do, D, E, F, and G (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant lands”), the building report was filed on June 29, 2009 with the Defendant, and on June 22, 2010, the above warehouse building was commenced and approved for the use of the building on February 13, 2012.

On February 23, 2012, the land category C (hereinafter “instant land”) was changed from “forest to “ware site”; the said land category D, E, F, and G (hereinafter “instant land”) was changed to “road” from “forest” on the same day.

(1) The amount of development charges (i) 416,39,070 (2) the land price as at the time of completion of the imposition is 22,839,840 normal increase in land prices 3,798,763 development costs 221,895,8463 development gains (i) 167,864,6214 development charges (i) 41,966,150

B. The defendant is the above A.

The development project for the warehouse and access road site development project shall be deemed the development project subject to the development charges prescribed in Article 5 of the Restitution of Development Gains Act, and on May 1, 2012, a disposition was issued to impose the development charges of each of the instant land, calculated as follows, KRW 41,96,150 on the Plaintiff and three other owners, who were owners of each of the instant land at the

(hereinafter referred to as “previous Disposition”). (c)

On April 16, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking revocation of the previous disposition with this Court 2013Guhap3390, which was subject to administrative appeal, but this Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on May 22, 2014.

Accordingly, on December 2, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed (Seoul High Court 2014Nu52437), and the Seoul High Court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff mistakenly selected the comparative standard in the course of calculating the land price at the time of termination of the imposition of each of the instant land, and there is an error in the gradient classification in calculating the land price as at the starting point of the imposition of each of the instant land.