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

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of B, North-gu, Northern-gu, B, 343 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and its ground obstacles (hereinafter “instant land”). < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 25140, May 1, 2014; Presidential Decree No. 25024, May 1, 2014; Presidential Decree No. 2502, Feb. 1, 2014).

B. The instant land was incorporated by the Defendant, a project implementer, into the “D Opening Corporation” (hereinafter “D”) and is subject to the Defendant’s ruling of expropriation on June 26, 2015 by the Regional Land Tribunal of Gyeongbuk-do.

8. 17. Expropriation of the instant land and obstacles was commenced.

All buildings and obstacles in North-gu B and obstacles shall be removed at the port of entry or by means of vicarious execution of each location;

C. On November 11, 2015, the Defendant: (a) on the ground that the Plaintiff did not deliver the instant land and obstacles to the Defendant by the commencement date of expropriation, the Defendant was scheduled to conduct vicarious execution if the Plaintiff did not transfer the Plaintiff’s ownership of the instant land by December 12, 2015, under Article 89 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”); and (b) Article 3 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act (hereinafter “the instant disposition”).

On December 7, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking confirmation of invalidity of the instant disposition with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, which was dismissed on January 25, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 12 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion ① The instant disposition was directed towards the duty to remove obstacles that cannot be the object of vicarious execution.

② The Defendant did not take any measure against the omission in compensation among the goods on the ground of the instant land, and the remaining land.