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

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

A. The Incheon Michuhol-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and four lots of land outside C were incorporated into the project site of the D Urban Development Project, and the land compensation for the shares of the defendant was deposited. The defendant was served with the notice of the decision on the seizure of the claim and the collection order by subrogation of the plaintiff 2017TT 3054 (hereinafter "the collection order in this case") and became aware of the fact that the defendant knew of the existence of the compensation and deposit. According to the evidence No. 4, the deposit amount was 28,097,160 won, but the plaintiff stated in the complaint No. 1, "the defendant knew of the existence of the compensation amount (28,093,550 won) due to the expropriation," and Paragraph 4, "The defendant stated that the compensation amount acquired by the plaintiff (28,093,50 won) is 28,093,500 won, 293,50 won, 30539,50 won, 305 won, 509.5 won.

acquired the Company.

Therefore, pursuant to Articles 3 and 4 of the Lost Articles Act and Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 5,111,00 in the aggregate of KRW 1,60,000 paid by the Plaintiff prior to the delivery of the instant collection order, and KRW 3,51,693 in the amount of KRW 12.5% in the land compensation acquired by the Defendant, and KRW 15,646,00 in the event of expenses under Article 13 of the Lost Articles Act and Articles 253 and 255 of the Civil Act, the Defendant entered the amount of KRW 15,60,00 in the aggregate of KRW 15,646,00 in the cost of expenses and KRW 50% in the amount of KRW 15,646,00 in the amount of acquisition under Article 13 of the Lost Articles Act.

If 1,600,000 won is excluded from the above amount, the amount equivalent to 50% of the land compensation is KRW 14,046,00,00, and the land compensation should be KRW 28,092,00,000, which is double the above amount. This is difficult to accurately understand the Plaintiff’s assertion, depending on the deposit amount stated in the evidence No. 4 or the amount of the land compensation claimed by the Plaintiff.