2. Articles 208 (3) 1 and 257 of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of Acts;

3. We examine whether the part seeking the delivery and collection of obstacles, etc. mentioned in Nos. 4 through 83 of the attached Table 3 among the lawsuits in this case is legitimate ex officio.

Article 19 of the Special Act on the Utilization of Waterfronts provides that "Except as otherwise provided for in this Act, the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor shall apply to the expropriation or use of land, etc. under this Act."

Article 43 of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (hereinafter referred to as the “Public Works Act”) provides that “the landowner or person concerned, or any other person who does not include the landowner or person concerned, and who has the right to the land to be expropriated or used or who has the right to the goods on such land shall deliver or transfer it to the project implementer by the commencement date of expropriation or use.” Article 89(1) of the same Act provides that “Where a person liable to perform an obligation under this Act or any disposition taken under this Act fails to perform the obligation within a given period or makes it difficult to complete it, or where it is deemed that allowing the person to perform the obligation to perform it would substantially undermine the public interest, the project implementer may file an application for vicarious execution, as prescribed by the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, with the Mayor/Do Governor or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu in receipt of such application.”

The Central Land Expropriation Committee under the Public Works Act determines that the Plaintiff, who is the project implementer of this case, owns each obstacles set forth in Nos. 4 through 83 of the annexed Table 3.