1. The defendant is limited to the plaintiff's gratuitous concession on December 24, 2008 with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list.

1. Presumed facts

A. On December 24, 2008, the head of Daejeon Dong-gu shall approve and publicly notify the implementation of a residential environment improvement project in area 2 (hereinafter “instant project”) instead of Daejeon Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, and Dong-dong, pursuant to Article 28 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 9401, Jan. 30, 2009; hereinafter “former Urban Improvement Act”). The plaintiff is the project operator.

B. The attached list real estate (hereinafter referred to as "each real estate of this case") is owned by the defendant, which is included in the residential environment improvement zone of the project of this case.

(c) Article 68(1) of the former Act shall be as follows:

(1) Any land owned by the State or a local government in a residential environment improvement zone shall be deemed to be disused from the date of public announcement of project implementation authorization under Article 28 (4), and such land shall be gratuitously transferred to the relevant project implementer notwithstanding the provisions of the State Property Act, the Local Finance Act, and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes governing the management and disposal of State or public land.

The same shall not apply to the administrative or preserved properties as prescribed in Article 4 (1) of the State Properties Act or Article 72 (2) of the Local Finance Act, and the land for which the State or local government receives part of the price as of the date of public notice of

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 3 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. As seen earlier, on December 24, 2008, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of each of the instant real estate included in the residential environment improvement zone pursuant to Article 68(1) of the former Act on the same day, since there was a public notice of authorization for project implementation under Article 28 of the former Act on the instant project on December 24, 2008.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to the plaintiff for each of the real estate of this case.