2. The Plaintiff’s lawsuit concerning the part of the land indicated in the attached list No. 2 among the instant lawsuit.

An abbreviationd name established in the judgment of the first instance is also used below the same.

2. As to the plaintiff's claim on the land No. 2 of this case, the defendant asserts that the above part of the lawsuit of this case is unlawful since there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant to bring an action against the plaintiff as to the plaintiff's claim on the land No. 2 of this case.

In the case where there is an objection against the validity or scope of a claim for trial which is guaranteed by the Constitution, the agreement to bring an action is an important litigation law, such as waiver of a claim for trial which is guaranteed by the Constitution, and it is valid as to the circumstances anticipated at the time of the agreement (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da63988, Mar. 26, 199). The decision should be made after a reasonable interpretation of the intent of the parties.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Da80449 Decided November 28, 2013). The Plaintiff first requested consultation on the statement of traffic impact assessment to the Defendant on May 16, 2007. The Plaintiff submitted a performance plan to the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do on May 13, 2007, reflecting the result of consultation with the Defendant, and submitted a performance plan to the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do on July 13, 2007, and completed the construction of multi-family housing around October 30, 2009 after obtaining the approval of the project plan of this case from the head of the relevant Si/Gun on July 13, 2007. According to subparagraph 3-2, the Plaintiff prepared the donation contract on the land of this case between the Defendant and the Defendant on January 19, 2010, in light of the motive and contents of the above donation contract, the Plaintiff may be acknowledged as not having reached an agreement on compensation or any civil or criminal objection.