A. Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor is an association with the purpose of an urban development project to create a residence in the Fow of Kimpo-si according to the replotting method under the Urban Development Act (hereinafter “instant urban development project”).

The Defendant-do Governor designated a development plan based on the replotting method as an urban development zone of the district pursuant to Articles 3 and 4 of the former Urban Development Act (amended by Act No. 9862, Dec. 29, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply) with respect to the size of 708,520 square meters in Seoul, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, and established a development plan based on the replotting method and publicly announced as G publicly announced on October 6, 20

(hereinafter referred to as “instant designation of an urban development zone and a disposition of establishing a development plan”)

Defendant’s Intervenor was designated by Defendant Kimpo-si as the implementer of the instant urban development project on February 11, 2010, and the implementation plan for the instant urban development project was prepared and approved by the Gyeonggi-do Governor on August 26, 2010.

C. On July 5, 2012, the Defendant Intervenor designated and announced the land substitution plan on September 5, 2012 after obtaining authorization for the land substitution plan from the Defendant Kimpo market (hereinafter “instant land substitution plan”).

On the other hand, the defendant Kimpo-si announced the approval of the housing construction project plan on September 28, 2012, on June 21, 2013, and on June 21, 2013, the defendant Kimpo-si announced the alteration of the C District Development Plan and the alteration of the implementation plan to the E-City notification on August 27, 2014.

E. The Plaintiff is a landowner within the instant urban development project zone, and the Defendant’s Intervenor did not reach an agreement on compensation for losses with the Defendant’s Intervenor, and the Defendant’s Intervenor deposited KRW 937,427,370 with the Plaintiff as the depositee following the Gyeonggi-do Local Land Tribunal’s adjudication on compensation for losses

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Defendant ex officio made the judgment prior to the merits.