1. The part of the lawsuit of this case concerning the removal claim and the part concerning the indirect compulsory performance shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's use and benefit.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Under the Urban Development Act, the pertinent Plaintiff is an implementer of the instant urban development project with the purpose of conducting an urban development project with respect to the area of 560,887 square meters in Pyeongtaek-si G Gwon (hereinafter “instant urban development project”). The Defendant is an implementer of the instant urban development project, which is located within the instant urban development project district, in the area of Pyeongtaek-si, which is the land located within the instant urban development project district, in the area of 754 square meters in size, D road, 39 square meters in size, 628 square meters in size, 3,081 square meters

1. It is the installation and possessor of obstacles to the entry in the list (hereinafter “instant obstacles”).

B. The progress of the instant urban development project and the Plaintiff were designated as the project implementer on April 6, 2009 after obtaining authorization to establish the association for the instant urban development project from the head of Pyeongtaek-si on March 20, 209. After obtaining authorization for an implementation plan from the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do on January 29, 2010, obtaining authorization for a land substitution plan from the head of Pyeongtaek-si on September 29, 2017. On October 12, 2017, the date of entry into force as to the land within the instant urban development project, including the instant land, was designated and publicly announced as a planned land substitution as of November 2, 2017.

On February 27, 2018, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to compensate for losses for the obstacles in the instant case at KRW 955,324,743, but did not reach an agreement, the Plaintiff filed an application with the local Land Tribunal of Gyeonggi-do for the adjudication on compensation for losses.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts that there is no dispute between the parties or is not clearly disputed, entry of Gap evidence 1-1 to Gap evidence 10 (including each number), and purport of whole pleadings]

2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is ① the Defendant is the installation and occupant of obstacles in the instant urban development project zone, and is obligated to suspend use and profit-making under Article 37 of the Urban Development Act. ② Since the Plaintiff is obligated to transfer or remove obstacles upon permission granted by the head of Pyeongtaek-si pursuant to Article 38 of the same Act, the Defendant is subject to permission to move or remove the obstacles.