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

A. Project approval and announcement 1) Project name: C Project name (hereinafter “instant project”);

(2) Public announcement: The Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Public Notification D3 Project Operators on December 1, 2016: The head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office.

B. Subject to the adjudication of expropriation by the local Land Tribunal on November 24, 2017 (hereinafter “instant adjudication of expropriation”): The instant unauthorized building owned by the Plaintiff was owned by E, but E had already died on April 19, 2013, the transfer of the instant adjudication of expropriation, and the Plaintiff succeeded to it; hereinafter the same is not distinguished from E and the Plaintiff. The Seoul Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Unauthorized Building without permission (hereinafter “instant Unauthorized Building”).

2) The date of commencement of expropriation: January 12, 2018.

As to the Plaintiff’s assertion that part of the building without permission in the instant case was excluded from the instant project on September 20, 2018 (hereinafter “instant objection”), the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Land Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on the ground that the project approval itself cannot be rendered identical as the project approval becomes impossible, i.e., the project approval itself, unless the project approval is revoked due to an administrative litigation. The Seoul Special Metropolitan City Land Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on the ground that there is no dispute [based on recognition], entry in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The administrative litigation seeking revocation of the adjudication by the Central Land Expropriation Committee on the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case on the ground that there is an ex officio illegality inherent in the adjudication by the Central Land Expropriation Committee shall be brought to the defendant within 90 days from the date of receiving the original copy of the adjudication (Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act), and the plaintiff shall be brought to the next 3.

As seen in the Claim, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant judgment, which was within 90 days from October 1, 2018 (Evidence No. 1) and served with the original copy of the instant judgment, alleging that there was an error inherent in the instant judgment, as seen in the instant judgment.