2. All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

(2) Defendant B (the name before the opening of the name was K), and the network C is a person who leased the underground among the above buildings and operated a sacr or business, and Defendant D, E, F, G, and B are the successors of C.

(3) In concluding a lease agreement with the Plaintiff, Defendant B and C agreed that “a facility, such as attached facilities and partitions, at the time of the termination of the lease agreement and at the lessee’s expense, shall be removed at the lessee’s expense and restored to the original state at the time of the conclusion of the lease agreement, and in any case, no compensation or beneficial cost, etc. for the leased property shall be claimed to the Plaintiff for the facilities installed by the lessee, partitions, etc

(Article 17(2)(4) of the Lease Agreement, while accepting the instant real estate, the defendant Namyang Urban Corporation filed an application for adjudication with the local Land Tribunal of Gyeonggi-do because it did not reach an agreement, even though it had agreed on compensation with C, etc. on the obstacles of Mana.

(5) The commission rendered a ruling of acceptance on July 24, 2013, as indicated below, and made a ruling of rectification on November 27, 2013.

The original adjudication amounting to KRW 64,00,000,000, such as 64,000,000,000 for the owner related person C, the Plaintiff’s water supply facilities, etc., and KRW 160,000,00,000,00 for the Plaintiff’s water supply facilities, and KRW 6,40,000,000,000,000,000,000 for the compensation for the repair, maintenance, etc. was paid to C; however, the Defendant Namyangan Urban Corporation paid 1,60,000,000,000 for the compensation for the water supply facilities, etc. (hereinafter “instant facilities”) on the ground that the order of seizure and collection was served on B and C, the deposited person was designated as 160,000,000,000

[Grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute, and each entry number A1-7.