Of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim to transfer the bonds listed in the attached Table 2.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I (eight in total) on each of the instant lands are each of the lands listed in the annexed Table 1 (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) from the Yongsan Market on September 17, 1999 by the Plaintiff, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I (eight in total)

(J) Of the foregoing eight persons obtained permission to divert farmland for the purpose of creating convenience facilities for residents and road sites (J). On September 22, 1999, the said eight persons paid KRW 19,850,020 as farmland preservation charges to the mayor of Yeongdeungpo-gu. 2) on March 14, 2001, the said permission to divert farmland was changed to the Plaintiff, C, K, K, E, F, G, H, I, L, Defendant, M (total 11), and the exclusive area was changed to 2,808 square meters, respectively.

On March 16, 2001, the above 11 person paid KRW 2,031,860 as additional farmland preservation charges due to the expansion of the exclusive use area of Yongsan City Mayor.

(A) Evidence No. 1). (b)

(1) On November 2004, the Plaintiff: (a) around March 2018, the Plaintiff submitted to the competent Mayor a document to transfer the rights related to the permission to divert the farmland of each of the instant lands (Evidence No. 2 and 4; 2); (b) on June 22, 2015, the Suwon District Court rendered a settlement recommendation (hereinafter “reconciliation recommendation”) on June 22, 2015, that “the Defendant has implemented the procedure to change the name of the person who has obtained permission to divert the farmland of the instant lands to the Plaintiff; and (c) on June 22, 2015, the Suwon District Court issued a settlement recommendation (hereinafter “reconciliation recommendation”) to the Plaintiff; (d) around March 2018, the evidence No. 2015, No. 2516, May 4, 2015; and (e) the entire argument No.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The plaintiff asserts that according to the decision of recommending the settlement of this case, the defendant permitted the diversion of farmland on each of the land of this case.