The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

On September 12, 2017, the Defendant paid charges for school sites to the Plaintiff KRW 473,01,260.

1. Since the part on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance (see Articles 1 and 2) and the part on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the relevant part on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance (see Articles 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

2. As to the main claim

A. The attached Form of the judgment of the first instance court of the relevant statutes is as stated in the relevant statutes.

B. As to the main safety defense regarding the claim for revocation of the instant reply, this part is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 7th to 9th 7th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth s

C. As to the claim for cancellation of the instant reply, Article 5(1) of the former School Sites Act provides that “The Mayor/Do governor may impose and collect school site charges on a person who develops and sells land to construct a detached house in a development project area or sells multi-family housing.” Article 5(4) of the same Act provides that “in cases falling under subparagraphs 1, 3, and 4 of the same Article, charges shall be exempted.” However, Article 5(1) of the same Act provides that “in cases where a development project is implemented in an area where there is no demand for the establishment of a school due to continuous decrease in the school population for at least three years, charges may be exempted” under subparagraph 2 of the same Article. Therefore, both the imposition of charges for school site and exemption under subparagraph 2 of the same Article constitute discretionary action. However, the imposition or exemption of charges for school site charges shall not exceed the limit of exercising discretion prescribed by the law as the general principle of discretionary action, nor shall they violate the principle of proportionality and equality, etc., to the minimum extent necessary to achieve the purpose of establishment of the charges (Article 5(1(1).