1. The Defendant indicated in the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 1 of the land of 101 square meters on the land of Gu, Si, Gu, Si, Si, Gu, and Gu.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an implementer of an urban development project “A” (hereinafter referred to as “A urban development project”) that is implemented in the area of 143,664 square meters of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Si, Gu.

B. On April 15, 2016, the Plaintiff publicly announced the designation of a land to be reserved for replotting, and determined the effective date of the designation of land to be reserved for replotting as of April 18, 2016; the land to be liquidated for money was determined as of May 18, 2016; and the land with obstacles was determined as of the day following the removal of obstacles.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant occupies the part on board (hereinafter “the part on board of this case”) that connects each point in sequence of 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,7,8,9, 9, and 1, indicated in the annexed drawings on the ground of 101 square meters on the land of Gu, Si, Gu, Si, Si, and Gu (hereinafter “the aforementioned part”).

On June 19, 2016, the Defendant paid 8,000,000 won to the Plaintiff and agreed to move out by June 15, 2016 with respect to all of the ground objects including the instant part on the ship, and received full amount of compensation from the Plaintiff on June 10, 2016.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 11 (including serial number) and the purport of whole pleading

2. According to the above facts finding as to the main claim, the defendant is obligated to leave the part on the ship of this case to the plaintiff pursuant to the above resettlement agreement, and as long as citing the main claim of the plaintiff as above, the plaintiff's conjunctive claim on the premise that the payment of compensation is null and void cannot be

3. As to the defendant's assertion and judgment, the defendant set the compensation at a lower level based on the unfair appraisal, and the defendant alleged that the compensation was omitted for obstacles, such as holidays, CCTVs, street lamps, etc., but there is a lack of evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, it is difficult to view that the compensation was set at a lower level than that which would be remarkably unfair when compared with the appraisal price of Gap evidence 6-1 to 3, and the original defendant is the compensation for all the above ground.