1. As to the Plaintiff, Defendant A’s KRW 12,771,205,00, and the Non-permanent Housing Co., Ltd.’s KRW 4,537,764,00 and each of them.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The progress of the instant case involving B Middle Schools: C District Land Partition Association (hereinafter referred to as “C District Association”).

A) Around 1989, the Plaintiff filed an application for the establishment of an association. Around December 27, 1989, when the Plaintiff approved for the alteration of the plan for the land readjustment and rearrangement and rearrangement and rearrangement and cadastral approval, the area of the school site for D Middle Schools (the alteration to Bmiddle School) was changed to 14,222 square meters, and on May 23, 1990, a land readjustment and rearrangement and rearrangement project was implemented on the establishment of an association and project implementation authorization. 2) On June 23, 1995, the Plaintiff made a decision on the facilities for the land readjustment and rearrangement and rearrangement and rearrangement and rearrangement project (the alteration) of D Middle School site (the “real estate of this case”).

[] The unit price was changed to KRW 201,548/m2.

3) On March 15, 2001, the C District Association asked the Plaintiff (the Office of Education of the Republic of Korea) on whether the timing of purchasing the instant 1 real estate and the timing of purchasing the instant 2 years or less for another purpose. The Plaintiff (the Office of Education of the Republic of Korea) was expected to purchase the site within 2 to 3 years, and the Plaintiff (the Office of Education of the Republic of Korea) notified the relevant department that the land should be used for other purposes if purchase is impossible, and that the land should be restored to its original condition at the time of establishing the school plan, and there was no consultation from the C District Association. 4) The C District Association filed an application with the Plaintiff for authorization of land substitution plan (disposition) around 2004, the Plaintiff entered the land substitution plan in the “2.......” After arranging the plan, the Plaintiff entered the land substitution plan (including the real estate of this case) in the “written report of the public land substitution plan” into the “written report of the land substitution.”

5) On December 5, 2005, the Plaintiff, like the previous application filed by the C District Association on December 5, 2005, set the unit price of real estate No. 1 of this case as 201,548/m2, and revised the C District Land Readjustment Project project plan (finality). 6) The Plaintiff, on December 31, 2005, took a disposition of land readjustment and rearrangement project of the C District.