1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a cooperative established to implement an urban development project in the Seongdong District, and the debtor is a contractor that received a contract from the defendant for the construction project in relation to the above project.

The plaintiff is a company that merges with the company that absorbs Boll.

(hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiffs” both of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Company

On October 29, 2010, the Plaintiff accepted a subcontract for part of the construction works for the said project contracted by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant construction”) from the Defendant. On November 201, 2010, the Plaintiff agreed to receive the subcontract price directly from the Defendant, the ordering person.

C. On August 24, 2011, the Defendant received a written confirmation of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development recompense regarding the instant land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development recompense, and on the 25th of the same month, changed the name of the owner of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development recompense into permanent soil.

On August 30, 2011, Ho Young-gu prepared a confirmation letter of payment of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay, stating that the land shall be paid to the Plaintiff as the construction price of the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10, Eul evidence No. 1 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant agreed to pay the instant land secured by the recompense for development outlay in lieu of the construction price of the instant land. At the same time, the Plaintiff maintained the confirmation of the land secured by the recompense for development recompense of development outlay received from the Defendant on the land secured by the recompense for development recompense of development outlay. As such, the Plaintiff acquired exclusive right to use and benefit from the instant land secured by the recompense

Nevertheless, it is null and void because there is no legal ground to change the name of the owner of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay for development outlay managed by the defendant into permanent soil in collusion with permanent soil.

Therefore, the land secured by the development recompense of this case.