1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Case history

(a) Business authorization and public announcement - A district urban development project (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”) within the area under the territory of the Republic of Korea - No. 2012-457 of the Gyeonggi-do Public Notice on December 13, 2012 - The location and area of the project execution area: Defendant - The location and area of the project execution area: 401 square meters per 155,713 square meters per Sinnam-dong.

B. The Plaintiff is the owner of the 399-6 large 17,605 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and the warehouse, etc. on the ground of the instant land incorporated into the instant business (hereinafter “instant obstacles”).

C. Meanwhile, around September 1985, the instant obstacles were extended as part of the ready-mixed factory facilities installed according to the permission to engage in an act in a development-restricted zone in the subordinate market (three years). The period was terminated on December 31, 199, and the subordinate city provided guidance for the removal of the obstacles to the Plaintiff on a total of six occasions from November 7, 2006 to January 2, 2014, but the Plaintiff did not implement this.

On March 29, 2013, the Defendant publicly announced a compensation plan for land, etc. included in the instant project (afterward procedure: adjudication on expropriation of compensation for losses, consultation on expropriation of compensation for losses, payment of compensation for expropriation or deposit), and a written objection to the owners of land, goods, etc., within the perusal period if they raise an objection after perusal of the land and goods protocol. The subject of appraisal is only included in the instant land, but not included in the instant obstacles.

E. On December 6, 2013 and January 10, 2014, the Plaintiff sent a public notice to the Defendant stating that “the instant obstacles are included in the subject of appraisal and assessment en bloc with the instant land.”

F. Accordingly, on January 17, 2014, the Defendant sent a reply to the effect that the instant obstacles may not be included in the subject of appraisal (hereinafter “instant reply”) because the instant obstacles are illegal buildings for which the Plaintiff should voluntarily remove.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 4.