1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was appointed on November 16, 2016 as the representative director of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) established on June 27, 1984 on the part of the owners of land and buildings in Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “B”) as shareholders.

B. Since the late 1980s, owners of land B, etc. occupied the land D (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the Defendant located in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant land”) adjacent to the Defendant’s Jung-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “Seoul”) without permission, upon receiving a disposition of imposition of road compensation from the Defendant, the payer was paid the road compensation.

C. After measuring the current status of cadastral records on August 28, 2017, the Defendant verified that the area of unauthorized occupation and use of the owners of the land B, etc. increases compared to the area subject to the indemnity previously imposed until the previous time, and that the rate of imposition of the indemnity was erroneously applied until the previous time, on October 20, 2017, after hearing the opinion about the prior notice of imposition of road indemnity, notified the “Eprop Association” of the scheduled details of imposition of road indemnity on February 5, 2018, and on February 8, 2018, notified the payer of the scheduled contents of imposition of road indemnity to “Eprop Association” (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an appeal on March 13, 2018 with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission in the name of the Plaintiff, as the representative of the Plaintiff, and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a judgment on June 11, 2018, stating that “The part of the road compensation amounting to KRW 67,206,50, which the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff on February 8, 2018, on the occupied area of KRW 7.45 square meters from November 1, 2012 to August 27, 2017, is revoked, and the remainder of the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Class A: Evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11 (including paper numbers), Eul’s Evidence Nos. 2 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant's judgment on the defense prior to the merits of the case is not the plaintiff's individual but the Ethical family council.