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

In around 2006, the Minister of Construction and Transportation, in accordance with the former Act on Special Measures for the Construction, etc. of National Rental Housing (amended by Act No. 8014, Sep. 27, 2006; hereinafter the same) designated the sum of 278,851.7 square meters in the land located in the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the erroneous Dong as the planned district for the national rental housing complex, and the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) as the project implementer of the Seoulcheon-2 National Rental Housing Complex development Project (hereinafter “instant project”), and the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs approved the alteration of the scheduled district and the alteration of the implementation plan on December 30, 2008, and publicly notified it by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 2008-911.

In the “detailed statement and disposal plan of public facilities, etc. as prescribed in Article 19 of the Act” of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs public notice, the “Protocol of 4. Free Reversion and Substitute Public Facilities (not more than 30 pages of evidence A)” includes 38 parcels of land to be reverted to the Plaintiff, including each land listed in the annexed sheet (except land No. 6, 12-33, Dong-dong, 12-33). The actual usage status of each land listed in the annexed sheet in the annexed sheet at the time of approval of the implementation plan of the project of this case (hereinafter “each land of this case”) was different from the land category indicated in the land cadastre, land paper, etc.

On February 24, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for each of the instant land, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 13, 2012, based on an agreement on the acquisition of public land.

The purchase and sale price of each land of this case shall be as stated in the separate sheet of land.

A) The Plaintiff constructed a road as a new public facility replacing an existing road in accordance with the instant project. [In the absence of a dispute over the grounds for recognition, each entry in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the entire pleadings.