1. Paragraph 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance (the part concerning the main claim) shall be applied to a claim that has been changed in exchange at the trial.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of a 1,536 square meters in Jung-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “D land”), and the Defendant is the owner of E amusement park 1,536 square meters in size (hereinafter “E”).

On August 11, 2003, the price of the region, including the above land, was designated as the F Area.

B. D land owned by the Plaintiff is located at a location where a road can be entered through H amusement park (hereinafter “H land”), 562 square meters, etc. located in G located adjacent to the Plaintiff, such as the indication of the attached drawing. The land owned by the Defendant is located at a location that can enter the road following the land owned by the Plaintiff and H land owned by G.

Meanwhile, in addition to D land owned by the Plaintiff and H land owned by the Defendant, N Recreation 1,432 square meters (hereinafter “N”) owned by the Plaintiff, and P amusement Park 1,536 square meters (hereinafter “P”) owned by the Plaintiff, is located in a P amusement park owned by the Plaintiff, and a P land owned by the Plaintiff.

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant had failed to obtain a construction permit for the purpose of increasing the amount of compensation for expropriation by newly constructing Class I neighborhood living facilities on each of the above lands on the ground before the land expropriation is completed, and changing the land category from the existing “ amusement park” to the “site” which is higher than its officially announced value.

However, while recognizing that access roads to each of the above lands are not secured and seeking measures to secure such access roads, part of the G-owned land was jointly purchased in order to secure common access roads to the D and E land. In addition, in order to secure the access roads to the Defendant’s E land, the Plaintiff provided part of the D and the Plaintiff’s error in the entry into the Plaintiff’s land, and the P and D land owned by the same household as the road divided.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on August 14, 2008 as follows:

The plaintiff and the defendant are as follows: I land compensation and construction.