1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is that the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the corresponding part of the judgment, and thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff may remove or remove the obstacles of this case in accordance with the permission of the head of Pyeongtaek-si under Article 38 of the Urban Development Act, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to leave the obstacles of this case from the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances. Meanwhile, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the defendant voluntarily withdrawn from the obstacles of this case around October 2019 when the trial was in progress, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant for the removal of this case against the defendant is groundless

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed. With respect to the burden of litigation costs, the defendant, who voluntarily leaves the obstacles of this case while the lawsuit of this case is pending, voluntarily leaves the obstacles of this case, thereby resulting in the plaintiff's loss, etc., shall be ordered to bear the total litigation costs in accordance with Article 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, comprehensively taking into account the progress of the lawsuit of this case, such as the circumstance that the defendant voluntarily leaves the obstacles of this case while the lawsuit of this case is pending in the trial, and the defendant did not receive the lawsuit costs even though the plaintiff agreed to the KA Urban Development Project Implementation Agency F and

In addition, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant to determine the amount of execution expenses incurred in the course of attempting to implement compulsory execution based on the original copy of the judgment of the first instance or the decision of acceptance of a provisional disposition for withdrawal, on the grounds that such application itself is unreasonable, and that the total cost of the instant lawsuit ought to be borne by the Plaintiff.