1. The part concerning the claim for removal among the lawsuits in this case shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) Appendix 1 Schedule 1, respectively.

Description of Claim

Attached Form 2 is as shown in the cause of the claim.

Article 208 (3) 1 and Article 257 (Judgment without Oral Proceedings) of the Civil Procedure Act shall be dismissed ex officio in respect of whether the part of the lawsuit in this case is legitimate.

Since the Plaintiff, who is the project implementer of this case, paid the compensation determined by the expropriation decision in accordance with the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”) to the Defendant, who is the owner of each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and any obstacle installed on the ground or on the building, the Defendant is obligated to transfer each of

(See Article 19 of the Special Act on the Utilization of Waterfronts and Article 43 of the Land Compensation Act. However, in cases where a defendant fails to perform his/her duties, the plaintiff may apply to the competent administrative agency for vicarious execution as prescribed by the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, and in such cases, the administrative agency in receipt of such application shall comply therewith unless there is good cause.

(See Article 89(1) of the Land Compensation Act. In a case where the procedure for vicarious administrative execution is recognized, it is not permitted to seek the removal of obstacles by means of civil procedure (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da18909, May 12, 200). Accordingly, this part of the claim is unlawful.