1. The Defendant’s imposition of development charges of KRW 502,706,80 against the Plaintiff on September 4, 2014 is KRW 463,538,540.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 21, 2006, the Plaintiff: (a) obtained a building permit for the creation of a site for Class I neighborhood living facilities (retail stores) from the Defendant on November 21, 2006; and (b) obtained approval for the use of the said building on January 8, 2014, with regard to the 67-1 square meters and 12 square meters (the alteration of land category after the merger and the alteration of land category is changed to 67 square meters in Sungnam-dong, Sungnam-si; hereinafter “instant land”); (c) obtained a building permit for the creation of a site for Class I neighborhood living facilities (retail stores); and (d) obtained the approval for the use of the said building on January 8, 2014.

(1) Development gains (i) 2,882,784,672, (ii) 408,227,976 development costs 164,988,100 normal increase in normal land prices 298,741,383. Development gains (i) 2,010,827,2084, (ii) development charges x (iii) x 25%, and (iv) 502,706,800

B. On September 4, 2014, the Defendant imposed development charges of KRW 502,706,80 on the Plaintiff as indicated below (hereinafter “instant disposition”). During this process, the Defendant selected the standard place for comparison of the instant land as the 63-10 square meters (hereinafter “instant comparative standard place”) of Sungnam-dong, Sungnam-dong, Sungnam-dong, Sungnam-dong, and assessed the height difference of the instant land as the “place of view” in assessing the characteristics of the land, which serves as the basis for calculating the land price at the time of completion, and assessed the road adjoining area as “commercial use”, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case should be revoked on the following grounds that the land price at the time of completion of development charges is excessive for the following reasons.

① At the time of the completion of development activities, the Defendant deemed that one side of the instant land adjoins a road, the width of which is less than eight meters wide, and thus assessed the road conditions of the said land as “the vertical length”, but the instant case.