A. On May 30, 2005, the Defendant’s new apartment construction, etc. (1) the highest floor H apartment of 24th floor on Gable block in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon, Sdong, and Tdong (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

(2) On December 1, 2005, the head of Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City announced the public announcement of the designation of the planned area of the housing site development project (U) and the public announcement of the designation of the planned area of the housing site development project, and the head of Seo-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City announced the public inspection of the environment, traffic, disaster, and population impact assessment report (the draft) and the resident explanation meeting regarding the housing site development project, and on December 19, 2008, the head of Incheon Metropolitan City announced the approval of the housing construction plan (the Incheon Metropolitan City notificationV) on the instant apartment on December 31, 2012, the Defendant commenced the new construction of the instant apartment on December 31, 2012, and completed the structural construction of the instant apartment on January 2014, and completed the construction of the instant apartment on July

B. Although the Defendant asserted to the effect that only the compensation is the most lessee, such as the Plaintiffs’ failure to submit the data on actual sales income and the data on actual consumption of tax-free oil, such as the conclusion of a lease agreement and the construction of plastic houses, the Defendant’s above assertion is not acceptable.

1) On March 19, 2010, Plaintiff A’s land Seo-gu Incheon D (hereinafter “D land”) from J from March 19, 2010.

(2) The Plaintiff A’s assertion to the effect that, after setting the rental period of ten years for rent and ten years for rent as KRW 10,00,00 (Advance pay), it was newly constructed a vinyl house with a size of 877.5 square meters in D’s land around 2010, and that, around that time, the Plaintiff A had cultivated a bridge on D’s land since the completion of the bridge construction of the instant apartment, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff A alone was insufficient to recognize that Plaintiff A had cultivated a bridge since before the completion of the bridge construction of the instant apartment, and there is no other evidence to support this otherwise, the Plaintiff B’s above assertion is not acceptable.