A. On November 8, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired the land at issue in the instant case as the state’s name, where the Plaintiff acquired the land at issue in the instant case was divided into B 121 square meters in size and C 39 square meters in size as a project executor of a project on November 8, 2004, B 160 square meters in size (the land at issue was divided into B 121 square meters in size and C 39 square meters in size as of October 26, 2009).

B. (1) On January 5, 2006, the defendant Pussian City discussed the opinion as to whether it is possible to transfer the ownership without compensation on the land of this case to be incorporated into the housing construction project site executed by the Chang Pussian Co., Ltd., and the defendant Gyeonggi-do requested on January 13, 2006 to respond to the opinion of the property manager on January 13, 2006.

B. On February 7, 2006, the Sheet City submitted to the defendant Gyeonggi-do the opinion that "if there is a beneficiary who is receiving profits from the same property, whether substitute facilities are installed without compensation, the size of substitute facilities, the location of substitute facilities, the designation of an agency to which substitute facilities belong, and whether the location of the property is an area necessary for the next construction, such as the implementation and development of road projects, etc., the property is planned to be contributed to and managed by the competent local government after the construction of the land necessary for the housing construction, and the development cost of the land used for public use is to be reduced through the gratuitous reversion of the land used for public use, and it is judged that the project can be processed more smoothly, and the defendant Gyeonggi-do used the land in this case as public facilities (roads, ditches) and the land in this case at the time of the defendant Pakistan-do on February 10, 2006, and therefore, the re-consultation should be made by attaching the results of the land survey to the new construction.

Consolidatedly, Defendant Pakistan included this case’s land in April 10, 2006 to Defendant Gyeonggi-do.