1. The part against Defendant C among the judgment of the first instance court is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C is dismissed.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff owned the Republic of Korea (Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport) and owned the “Seoul Yongsan-gu D Railroad Site 4,421.7 square meters” on the ground of “Seoul Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Railroad Site 4,421.7 square meters” as the owner of an unauthorized building of 105.1 square meters in size (hereinafter “instant unauthorized building”).

B. On October 5, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) concluded a lease agreement with the Defendants as joint lessee, setting a deposit amount of KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 600,000 on the non-permitted building of this case, where the size was indicated to be approximately KRW 33.10 square meters (a cadastral survey procedure; and (b) the area confirmed by the Korea Rail Network Authority around September 12, 2016 at the time when the compensation for this portion was deposited; hereinafter “instant leased building”) as KRW 49.46 square meters.

C. The Korea Rail Network Authority implemented the “E project” (hereinafter “instant project”), and neighboring railway sites, including the instant land, were incorporated into the instant project site.

The Korea Rail Network Authority had had consultation with the owners of obstacles to the project site of this case but did not reach an agreement. On October 13, 2015, the head of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government inspected and published an application for adjudication, etc. submitted to the Central Land Tribunal on October 13, 2015, and among the goods protocols, the owner of the entire unauthorized building of this case was the Plaintiff.

E. The Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Act on Compensation for Public Works Projects”) requires that the number of households of those who wish to move should be at least 10, except in extenuating circumstances.

) Article 40(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (see Article 40(2)) did not reach 10 households wishing to move to the instant project site. Accordingly, the Plaintiff drafted a sales contract on September 15, 2009, stating that the Plaintiff sold the instant leased building to Defendant B for KRW 190,000,000, and the Defendant B based on this.