1. The defendant shall leave the plaintiff from the obstacles indicated in the attached Table 1 list to the plaintiff.

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

3...

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. As to the facts of the cause of the claim listed in Attachment 2 of the facts of recognition

(However, “243,519,000 won” is a clerical error in the “93,242,00 won”). [The grounds for recognition] of absence of dispute, each entry in Party A’s Evidence Nos. 1 through 11 (including the serial number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. In the event that an implementer of an urban development project is permitted to relocate or remove buildings, etc. located in an urban development zone pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Urban Development Act, and the person occupying buildings, etc. is obstructed from the relocation or removal thereof, he/she may request the occupant to leave the zone for the smooth realization thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da89549, Sept. 4, 2014). According to the above findings, the Plaintiff, who is the implementer of the project of this case, is interfered with the relocation or removal of the relevant buildings due to the possession of the obstacles of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff, who is the implementer of the project of this case, may request the Defendant to leave the obstacles of this case pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Urban Development Act

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. 1) Whether the deposit of this case is legitimate since the plaintiff did not actually provide the defendant with compensation, the defendant did not refuse to receive compensation. Thus, the deposit of this case is unlawful. 2) In the case where it is evident that the debtor refused to receive compensation even if the debtor provided the performance of his obligations, considering the attitude of the creditor who judged the deposit of this case, the debtor is entitled to deposit for payment without providing performance (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da42276 delivered on August 26, 1994). In other words, in light of the circumstances acknowledged by considering the whole purport of arguments as a whole in evidence No. 12, the plaintiff did not receive the deposit of this case even if more than five months have passed since the deposit of this case was made on March 11, 2020, in view of the fact that the plaintiff did not receive the deposit of this case.