1. Of the ancillary claims in the judgment of the first instance, the Plaintiff who falls under any of the following subparagraphs:

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff primarily claimed for the payment of the purchase price of KRW 770,000,000 and the delay damages therefrom, and the Plaintiff claimed in advance unjust enrichment of KRW 452,682,00 and the delay damages therefrom.

The court of first instance dismissed both the primary claim and the conjunctive claim, and the plaintiff appealed only for the conjunctive claim.

(A) Although the chief of the court of first instance is dissatisfied with the judgment, it is clear that it is an appeal against the conjunctive claim in light of the specific purport of appeal and the content of the statement of grounds of appeal). Therefore, the subject of this court’s trial is limited to the

2. As to the conjunctive claim, this part of the reasoning of this Court argues that the Defendant, around March 3, 2014, paid the Plaintiff KRW 570,00,000 among the instant confinement compensation, and agreed to the implied settlement agreement with the effect that the Plaintiff and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 570,000,000 among the instant confinement compensation and settled the remainder of the claim and the obligation.

B) Although the settlement agreement is not explicitly required, it is possible to reach a settlement agreement, but it is also an agreement or a contract, and thus, it must be agreed upon by both parties disclosed. In particular, as alleged by the Defendant, if the Plaintiff was to receive only KRW 570,000 out of KRW 1,022,682,00,000 for the instant expropriation compensation, the Plaintiff may be deemed to have waived the claim or discharged the obligation with respect to the remainder of the amount. The waiver of the claim (or the exemption of the obligation is not necessarily subject to the express declaration of intent, but is not necessarily subject to the obligee’s act or declaration of intent.