1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff owned 35.7 square meters of a building for warehouse use on the land of Ansan-si I and J (hereinafter “unauthorized building”). On March 8, 2013, the Defendant Ansan-si issued a corrective order to voluntarily remove an unauthorized building and reinstate it to the Plaintiff, on March 6, 2015, and issued a corrective order again on March 6, 2015, but the Plaintiff did not comply with the corrective order by April 6, 2015, on May 20, 2015.

B. Defendant F and G jointly owned 1/2 shares of 1,289 square meters each of the instant litigation costs and costs for alternative performance. However, the Suwon District Court rendered a favorable judgment by filing a lawsuit to remove the warehouse, etc. installed on the ground of the instant land against the Plaintiff as the Pyeongtaek District Court Decision 2013Kadan6082 and to transfer the part on the land where the relevant warehouse, etc. is installed. The said judgment was finalized on May 29, 2015 (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Na15375), following the final appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2015Na1267) and the final appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Na1267) (hereinafter “instant related lawsuit”).

(2) Based on the foregoing final judgment, Defendant F and G filed an application with the Plaintiff and L as the obligor for the authorization of alternative enforcement with respect to the Plaintiff, the Suwon District Court K, and the said court rendered a decision to authorize Defendant F and G to execute alternative enforcement on October 29, 2015. In relation to the Plaintiff on October 29, 2015, the said court rendered a decision to authorize Defendant F and G to execute alternative enforcement.

3) An enforcement officer belonging to the Suwon District Court which was delegated by Defendant F or G with the execution of the instant land site is M to substitute enforcement based on the instant decision (hereinafter “instant substitute enforcement”).

(4) Defendant F and G filed an application with the Plaintiff for the determination of the execution cost N in Suwon District Court’s Eunpyeong Housing Site, and the said judicial assistant officer of the court applied for the determination of the execution cost on June 20, 2017, the amount of the instant alternative execution cost plus KRW 2,513,600, respectively, to Defendant F and G, in total, KRW 5,027.