1. The defendants attached to the plaintiff

1. Withdrawal from each obstacle in the list;

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

1. Basic facts

A. The relevant Plaintiff is an implementer of the instant urban development project with the purpose of conducting an urban development project with respect to the size of 191,610 square meters of Pyeongtaek-si Dwon pursuant to the Urban Development Act (hereinafter “instant urban development project”).

The Defendants are attached Form 1,290 square meters on the ground of Pyeongtaek-si E-Ba (hereinafter “instant land”) located within the instant urban development project district.

1. Each of the obstacles entered in the list (hereinafter “each of the obstacles of this case”) is co-Possessors.

B. The Plaintiff was designated as the project implementer on June 30, 201 after obtaining authorization for establishment from the head of Pyeongtaek-si on June 2, 2011 with respect to the instant urban development project. After obtaining authorization for implementation plan from the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do on February 28, 2014, the Plaintiff obtained authorization for a land substitution plan from the head of Pyeongtaek-si on October 5, 2015 after obtaining authorization for change of implementation plan. On November 17, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the designation and public announcement of land substitution within the instant urban development project zone including the instant land. 2) The Plaintiff agreed with the Defendants on compensation for losses on each of the obstacles of the instant case, but did not reach agreement, and the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Expropriation Committee deposited the land substitution plan with the Plaintiff on August 2, 2015.

3) Thereafter, on May 22, 2019, the head of Pyeongtaek-si permitted the Plaintiff to move and remove obstacles, the compensation for which has been completed pursuant to Article 65 of the Urban Development Act, on condition that Article 38 of the Urban Development Act should be complied with. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, and each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 14 (including paper numbers, the purport of the whole pleadings)

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Article 38 of the Urban Development Act applies to an implementer of an urban development project of the relevant legal doctrine.