A. The Plaintiff is an implementer of an urban development project “A” (hereinafter referred to as “A urban development project”) that is implemented in the area of 143,664 square meters of Seoul Special Self-Governing Province in Guro-si.

B. On April 15, 2016, the Plaintiff publicly announced the designation of a land to be reserved for replotting, and determined the effective date of the designation of land to be reserved for replotting as of April 18, 2016; the land to be liquidated for money was determined as of May 18, 2016; and the land with obstacles was determined as of the day following the removal of obstacles.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant occupies 155 square meters in a ship (in the steel fence) connected each point of the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 1 on the land of 236 square meters and 199 square meters on the land of Gu, Si, Gu, Si, Si, Si, Do, and Gu, in sequence (hereinafter “the part on the steel fence”).

On June 13, 2016, the Defendant paid 15,000,000 won to the Plaintiff and agreed to move to the same place until June 19, 2016 with respect to all of the ground objects, including the fences of the instant steel system. The Defendant was paid the full amount of the compensation from the Plaintiff on June 13, 2016.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 9 (including serial number), the purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the main claim, the defendant is obligated to leave the part of the fence of this case to the plaintiff pursuant to the above relocation agreement, and as long as accepting the main claim of the plaintiff as above, the plaintiff's conjunctive claim under the premise that the payment of compensation is null and void is not separately determined.

3. As to the Defendant’s assertion and judgment, the Defendant set the lower compensation based on the unfair appraisal, and ② the Defendant asserted that the compensation was omitted for obstacles to the main gate, holiday, floor and concrete, but there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, the said compensation was set to the extent that it would be remarkably unfair compared with the appraisal price of Gap evidence 7-1 through 3.