1. The Plaintiff’s monetary liability relating to the urban development project in the Pyeongtaek-si District B against the Defendant does not exist.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 14, 2008, the designation of an urban development zone and a public announcement of the development plan ( Gyeonggi-do public announcement D) was made on November 24, 2010 with respect to Pyeongtaek-si Seoul Special Self-Governing Province (5,273 households/13,710), and on May 22, 2014, a land substitution plan was authorized on May 22, 2014 (the designation of a land substitution plan as of June 13, 2014), and the infrastructure construction was commenced on November 5, 2014.

B. The project method of the development project of Pyeongtaek District B (hereinafter “instant development project”), which is the replotting method, and as a result, the operator of the instant development project is the Pyeongtaek District Urban Development Project Association (hereinafter “Indoor Association”).

The Plaintiff is an agent of the instant development project and a member of the non-party association, and the Defendant is the co-ownership of 28 square meters (3/8) prior to Pyeongtaek-si in the instant development project zone.

C. In relation to the instant development project, on May 26, 2015, the instant development project was adjudicated as compensation for any obstacle to the land in the instant development project zone, and on July 10, 2015, the relocation and removal of obstacles began and all obstacles were removed.

Pursuant to Article 28(3) of the Urban Development Act and Article 59 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Development Act, the non-party association requested the national appraisal corporation and the KOGTA to appraise the land owned by the defendant, referring to the arithmetic mean of the appraisal values of each appraisal corporation, and determined the final appraised amount of KRW 9,44,400.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, 3, and 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation, since the defendant did not claim the compensation amounting to KRW 00 million against the plaintiff.

However, in full view of Gap evidence No. 5 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant.