1. On March 2, 2015, the Defendant’s land reserved for replotting with regard to B large 190 square meters and C large 237 square meters as against the Plaintiff on March 2, 2015.

Details of the disposition

A. The Defendant is the implementer of the Gwangju City D Urban Development Project (hereinafter “instant project”), and the Plaintiff is the owner of the Gwangju City C large 237 square meters located in the relevant business area (hereinafter “Before annexation”).

B. On July 24, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired a share of 190/422 square meters in B B, 422 square meters adjacent to the land prior to the annexation, which was connected with the land prior to the annexation, but became to own B, 190 square meters divided from the said land on November 17, 2014 (hereinafter “B before the annexation”).

On February 10, 2015, the land B before the annexation and C before the annexation were combined with the land C on the scale of 427 square meters in Gwangju-si (hereinafter “C after the annexation”).

C. Meanwhile, on November 25, 2013, the Defendant publicly announced the designation and development plan of the urban development zone with the content of implementing the instant project using the replotting method; on September 15, 2014, the implementer of the instant project was designated as the Defendant and announced the implementation plan and topographic drawings; on November 11, 2014, the instant land substitution plan was made public and announced on the public; on February 25, 2015, the land substitution plan was formulated and announced on February 25, 2015 after the public announcement of the land substitution plan (amended) and the land substitution plan was made on March 2, 2015.

According to the designation and public notice of the land scheduled for substitution, E 250 square meters (hereinafter “instant land scheduled for substitution”) in the D urban development project district of Gwangju City was designated as the land scheduled for substitution B and C before the merger.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The Disposition in this case is without dispute; Gap evidence 1 to 3; Eul evidence 1 to 6 (including paper numbers); and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case was unlawful because the owner of the land B and C prior to the merger is the same and adjacent land. However, the defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful since it did not recognize each of the above land as a group of land.