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

A. On May 16, 1978, the total size of 1788.3 square meters of the 15 lots, including Daegu Suwon-gu C large 105 square meters (hereinafter “land before replotting”) and 15 lots of land was changed to the Daegu Suwon-gu E large 1121.4 square meters on May 16, 1978 due to the land readjustment project and the subsequent land substitution disposition (hereinafter “land after replotting”), and the same year.

7.12. Any substitute registration has been made.

B. In the process, the additional area of the land before replotting was recognized as 26.4 square meters, but the area of the right to the land before replotting was 216.9 square meters after the reduction of the area of the right to the land before replotting, and the area of the right to the total area of 15 square meters, other than the land before replotting, was 1059.4 square meters.

C. On the other hand, on February 8, 1985, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant a total of KRW 98,138,000 and KRW 2,354,176,00,000,00 for liquidation money of KRW 1,356,038 and overdue interest of KRW 1,356,038. On December 22, 1993, the Plaintiff, et al. purchased 853,6,00,000 from the Defendant for the purchase of KRW 449,00 from the land after replotting.

The Plaintiff agreed against the Defendant that the Plaintiff would transfer the ownership of the excessive area of 62 square meters to the Plaintiff when the Plaintiff paid the liquidation money to the Plaintiff as Daegu District Court 2001Kadan580, Daegu District Court 2001. However, the Defendant arbitrarily disposed of the excessive area as above. As such, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the excessive area out of the purchase price.

E. On May 23, 2001, the above court rendered a judgment against the plaintiff on the grounds that there is no evidence to acknowledge the agreement as alleged by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff appealed, but the same year.

9.25. Withdrawal of an appeal; the same year;

6. 22. A final and conclusive date.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's entries in Gap's 1, 3 through 5, 10, 12, 14, 15, and Eul's 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant's decision on this safety defense is that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for return of unjust enrichment at the Daegu District Court 2001Kadan580 and ruled against the plaintiff.