1. The Defendant: KRW 6,428,300,250 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from January 4, 2017 to January 22, 2018; and

1. Under Article 3 of the former Housing Site Development Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 8384, Apr. 20, 2007; hereinafter “Housing Site Development Promotion Act”), the Plaintiff was designated as the implementer of the project in the planned housing site development area of “B”, which is developed from the Minister of Construction and Transportation on a daily scale of 3,984,00 square meters, including Ansan-si Adong, Andong, etc., pursuant to Article 3 of the same Act.

Since then, the name of the said planned area for housing site development was changed to "C District" (hereinafter referred to as "C District").

On December 5, 2011, Gyeonggi-do obtained approval of the instant housing site execution plan (hereinafter referred to as “instant approval of the execution plan”).

The above implementation plan has been amended four times from December 2, 2014 to November 2017, and the plaintiff purchased the land in the district and is proceeding with the development project of the housing site area.

Attached Form

Each land entered in the list (total 83 parcels; hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant land”) is a state-owned land located within the instant housing site zone, and its land category entered in the public record was investigated into a river or bank (the land category by each land is the same as indicated in the annexed list) or as at the time of the approval of the instant implementation plan, the current status at the time of the approval of the instant implementation plan was examined into rice paddy field, dry field, orchard, housing site, miscellaneous land, etc. (the land category by each land is the same as the listed in the annexed list

Article 25(1) of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act around 2016 and Article 65 of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 9627, Apr. 22, 2009; hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”), the Plaintiff requested consultation on gratuitous reversion of the instant land on the ground that it should be reverted to the implementer of the public works project when the administrative agency entrusted with the management affairs of the instant land by the State is aware of the fact that the instant land should be reverted to the implementer of the public works project. However, the Plaintiff rejected such request.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff decided to acquire the instant land at a cost on the business schedule, and on April 25, 2016, the instant case.