1. The defendant shall leave the plaintiff from the obstacles in the attached list No. 1.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. Facts as to the grounds for the claim

B. The Gyeonggi-do Local Land Tribunal rendered a ruling on February 3, 2020, and in light of the respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 79,620,400 won, which was decided on March 11, 2020, the Plaintiff is obvious that the “243,519,000 won” of the deposit money of 2 pages as of April 3, 2020, in light of the purport of the claim as of April 3, 2020 and the written evidence Nos. 79,620,40 won as of March 11, 2020.

B Deposit (U.S. District Court No. 605 in 2020) was made by the head of Pyeongtaek-si on March 31, 2020, and the permission was obtained for the removal of obstacles from the head of Pyeongtaek-si.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry of Gap 1-11 evidence (including additional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) An implementer of an urban development project may relocate or remove buildings, etc. located in an urban development zone under Article 38 (1) of the Urban Development Act, and if anyone who occupies buildings, etc. is obstructed by such relocation or removal, he/she may request the occupant to withdraw for the smooth realization thereof;

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da89549 Decided September 4, 2014, etc.). B.

The plaintiff, who is the operator of the business of this case, is obstructed the relocation or removal of the building in question due to the defendant who occupies the obstacles of this case. Thus, pursuant to Article 38 (1) of the Urban Development Act, the plaintiff may request the defendant to leave the obstacles, and the defendant shall leave the obstacles of this case unless there are special circumstances.

C. As to this, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the Defendant could not respond to the instant request for eviction until the accurate change design of the National Highway E-the-land is publicly announced, since it failed to hear clear answers concerning the compensation plan for the land owned by the Defendant, which is scheduled to be incorporated into the road from the Plaintiff. However, the circumstance alleged by the Defendant cannot be deemed as a reason to block the Plaintiff’s request for eviction regarding each obstacle located in the “F” land, and therefore

3. If so, the plaintiff .