A. The Plaintiff A’s KRW 10,000,000 per annum from March 16, 2013 to June 5, 2013; and

A. The Defendant, including the Defendant’s development plan and application for a building permit, owned the farmland (D 3,66m2 and E 1,481m2) adjacent to two adjacent lots of land within a development restriction zone under the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones.

The Defendant: (a) created four lots of land (the above four lots of land is indicated below, G, H, IF; hereinafter the above order, hereinafter the same shall apply) with four persons, each of whom was divided into two lots of land, 329 square meters; (b) obtained permission for construction and permission for acts (the form and quality of the land) from Sungnam-si (hereinafter the supplementary intervenor) in the name of Sungnam-si (hereinafter the supplementary intervenor, respectively, in the order of the above land) by dividing or combining the above two lots of land into several lots; (c) thereby obtaining permission for construction and permission for acts (the form and quality of the land) from Sungnam-si (hereinafter the supplementary intervenor) in the name of Sungnam-si (J, K, L, and M).

However, the lower court determined that the lower court’s determination that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the road construction permit under the Building Act, and that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the road construction permit. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the ground that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the ground that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the road construction permit, thereby adversely affecting the lower court.

Since the above land is a part of the construction of a road according to a building permit and permission for activities (such as changing the form and quality of land), no objection is raised to the use of the road, and no objection is raised to the contribution of the road (including all the facilities installed in the land and the site of the road) after the construction of the road.

The defendant, around March 2002, under the name of the person with interest to the supplementary intervenor, respectively, on the premise that the supplementary intervenor was merged or divided.