1. The part of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit, which exceeds KRW 172,228,630, requesting revocation of the disposition rejecting correction.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff’s share of 1154 square meters prior to C, D, 906 square meters prior to D, and 19/60 of the 613 square meters prior to E, Macheon-si, the Plaintiff owned by the Plaintiff B (hereinafter “instant land”; hereinafter “instant land”) was located in a natural green area, which is a development-restricted zone, but the designation of a development-restricted zone was revoked on May 30, 2005, and was changed to Class I general residential areas.

B. Since then, as the key land in this case was incorporated into the GB expansion project district in Overcheon-si GB, the Plaintiffs agreed on compensation pursuant to the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor (= KRW 714,834,000 of the instant land 10,506,000), and Plaintiff B concluded a contract for the consultation with the Defendant to sell the instant land 3 at KRW 163,252,116 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract for consultation”). Plaintiff A completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 8, 2008 for the instant land 1,625,34,00,000, and Plaintiff B returned and paid the transfer income tax on the instant land to the Defendant for 163,252,116 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”). Plaintiff B paid the transfer income tax on May 8, 2008, and then Plaintiff B paid the transfer income tax on the instant land 31,2008.

C. In calculating the amount of compensation for the instant land, the Plaintiffs assessed the land value based on the conditions before the cancellation and alteration of use of the development restriction zone in calculating the amount of compensation for the instant land. As such, the Plaintiffs asserted that the method of calculating the amount of compensation for the instant land was erroneous, and that the instant contract for the purchase and sale of the instant land was revoked, and that it is impossible to restore the land to the original district court primarily due to the Plaintiff’s failure to restore the land to the original state.