1. The Defendant’s decision based on the Daejeon District Court Branch Decision 2014Gahap10460 Decided December 19, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a corporation established pursuant to the Korea Land and Housing Corporation Act with the aim of promoting the improvement of national residence life and efficient utilization of land, and contributing to the development of the national economy by having it acquire, develop, stockpile, and supply land, develop, and improve cities, and build, supply, and manage houses.

The Plaintiff owned A factory site A 7,141 square meters and a building on the ground of the land, which is a company that manufactures and sells main and charging machines, and owned a building on the land.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant land” and buildings respectively are the instant building, and the instant land and buildings are combined with the instant building and the instant land and buildings.

On June 20, 2012, the Defendant accepted the instant real estate in accordance with the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”) and paid compensation to the Plaintiff.

Since then, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant (U.S. District Court 2013Guhap4188). On July 1, 2014, the said court rendered a ruling to recommend reconciliation that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 278,326,150 won with 5% interest per annum from June 21, 2012 to August 1, 2014, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment,” and the said ruling to recommend reconciliation was finalized on July 19, 2014.

C. On August 1, 2014, the Defendant expressed to the Plaintiff that “The Defendant’s claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from June 20, 2012, which was the date of expropriation of the instant real estate against the Plaintiff, to the date of completion of delivery of the instant real estate, shall be offset against the Plaintiff’s above compensation claim against the Defendant.”

The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, etc. seeking delivery of the instant real estate, etc. expropriated or acquired through consultation, and return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent (this court 2014 Gohap10460), and the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, etc.