1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiff added a judgment on the assertion added at the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. In light of the purport of the Supreme Court Decision 98Du5859 Decided September 22, 1998 and the Supreme Court Decision 2001Du4627 Decided March 14, 2003, where the land price as of the starting point for the calculation of development charges is calculated by applying the purchase price, the transaction price report should be submitted exceptionally if the Plaintiff wants to apply the purchase price. Ultimately, whether the purchase price should be determined as of the officially announced price, and whether the purchase price should be applied can be selected by the Plaintiff. However, even if the Plaintiff did not report the purchase price in a new taxation procedure, the Defendant’s calculation of the development charges by applying the purchase price is unlawful in the process by disregarding the Plaintiff’s choice stipulated in the law. (2) In light of the purport of the Supreme Court Decision 2001Du4627 Decided March 14, 2003, the land price as of the starting point for the calculation of the development charges shall be calculated by applying the sale price or appraisal price, and Article 10(10 (Calculation of the standard land price) of the land.

applicable only if the value under this paragraph is lower than the value under this subsection.

B. As recognized by the first instance court, the Plaintiff.