1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid additionally shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a project implementer of a C development project implemented pursuant to the Special Act on Support, including areas adjacent to the granted zone B (hereinafter “instant project”).

B. The Defendant, as the owner of 3300/9567/9567 of the Gyeonggi-gun District D farm site located within the instant project area (the land was divided into D and E on April 17, 2014; hereinafter “instant land”) and the 4-dong (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground of the said land within the Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-gun located within the instant project area, was running a fish farming and food waste disposal facility business.

C. The Plaintiff obtained the approval of the instant project pursuant to Article 11(1) of the Special Act on Support for Areas, etc. adjacent to the granted zone B, and the head of Seocheon-gun published the approval as F of the annual Military Notification on May 2, 2013.

In order to acquire the instant land owned by the Defendant within the instant project area, the Plaintiff consulted with the Defendant on compensation, etc., but did not reach an agreement. Accordingly, the Central Land Expropriation Committee, upon the Plaintiff’s request for adjudication of expropriation, calculated the compensation for the instant land at KRW 191,362,740 on November 21, 2013, and the compensation for the obstacles including the instant building, and compensation for suspension of work, etc. on compensation for the amount of money, etc., as well as compensation for suspension of work for the amount of money, etc. on compensation for the instant obstacles, the Plaintiff made a ruling of expropriation at KRW 264,580,650 on January 14, 2014 (hereinafter “instant adjudication of expropriation”).

E. The plaintiff deposited the full amount of each of the above compensation in accordance with the adjudication of acceptance of the case, and the defendant did not deliver the building of this case even after the deposit was withdrawn.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the delivery of the instant building as the District Court Decision 2014Da16982, and the said court rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff on December 17, 2014.

The plaintiff and the defendant of the building delivery agreement shall conclude the agreement on the following matters, and shall agree on and implement the following matters in accordance with the principle of good faith:

1. The plaintiff