1. The Defendant’s KRW 197,146,66 of the Plaintiff, and KRW 5% per annum from January 9, 2013 to August 28, 2014, and thereafter.

Basic Facts

The Defendant is the project implementer of the Gyeong-gu Seoul Jung-gu E and F land (hereinafter “instant land”) located within the project site of the instant project, and the Plaintiff is the Seoul Jung-gu E and F land (hereinafter “instant land”) located within the project site, which was approved and publicly notified as the project approval by the Ministry of Construction and Transportation B announced on October 14, 2005 (hereinafter the Ministry of Construction and Transportation changed to C, July 22, 2008) (hereinafter “instant project”). Of them, E is a person who installed a vinyl house with steel pipe and tent, etc. similar to a vinyl house and kept military equipment, building materials, etc. of military uniforms, etc. as shown in the attached list.

On September 10, 2009, the Central Land Tribunal rendered a ruling of expropriation that “the Defendant shall expropriate the project site including the instant land for the instant project, transfer articles recorded in the separate sheet to another person, and the compensation for losses shall be KRW 1,735,640,020.” Among them, the compensation for losses for the items listed in the separate sheet was KRW 25,810,000. Upon raising an objection against the said ruling of expropriation, the Central Land Tribunal rendered a ruling of objection on February 4, 2010 that increased the compensation for losses for the items listed in the separate sheet to KRW 26,580,000.

In each of the above rulings, the plaintiff did not transfer the obstacles of this case, and the defendant deposited 25,810,000 won compensation as Seoul Northern District Court 2009 gold No. 4616, Nov. 2, 2009, and 770,000 won of the remainder compensation as gold No. 674, Mar. 17, 2010, respectively. On Nov. 12, 2009, the plaintiff instructed the plaintiff to execute the vicarious execution on two occasions on Nov. 26, 2009.

Nevertheless, the plaintiff did not transfer the obstacles of this case, the defendant entered into a service contract related to vicarious execution with the service company (I and representativeJ) around December 18, 2009 and entered into a service contract related to vicarious execution on December 21, 2009, and the vicarious execution on December 24, 2009 is implemented on December 24, 2009, and a list of the above service company through the above service company during the attendance of eight employees of the defendant.