1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the building indicated in the attached list.

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

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. In order to implement B business (hereinafter “instant business”), the Plaintiff paid KRW 92,664,530 as compensation for losses calculated with respect to buildings included in the separate sheet to be incorporated in the instant business (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant on or around December 2007, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the Plaintiff’s future on October 19, 2012 on the ground of an agreement on the acquisition of public land.

B. The Defendant, who rejected the Plaintiff’s request for delivery of the instant building that acquired ownership, has possessed it up to now.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff, except in special circumstances.

B. As to this, the Defendant agreed on KRW 137,646,615 of the Livestock Damage Compensation in accordance with noise, vibration, etc. due to construction noise, etc. with C Co., Ltd., the contractor of the instant project. The Defendant accepted the Plaintiff’s proposal and asserted that the Defendant continued to reside in the instant building instead of reducing livestock damage compensation amounting to KRW 52,307,026, and that the Plaintiff’s request cannot be complied with as it was a resident in the instant building with the Plaintiff’s consent to use.

The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff consented to the Defendant’s continuous residence in the building of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. In addition, according to the overall purport of the statements and arguments as to the evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the reason why the amount of livestock damage compensation between C and the Defendant was changed from KRW 137,646,615 to KRW 52,307,026 is attributable to the fact that the business compensation and the livestock damage compensation occurred at the same time due to livestock death before livestock death, and thus, the overlapping amount of compensation was determined as property.