1. Of the instant lawsuit’s main claim and the ancillary claim of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the attached Form.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The deceased A (hereinafter “the deceased”) adjoined to the south-si, Namyang-si, the south-si, the south-si, the 553 square meters (hereinafter “the instant K site”) owned the area of 1,067 square meters prior to H (hereinafter “the instant H”), 90 square meters prior to MM, 589 square meters prior to D (hereinafter “the instant D prior to D”), and the Defendant is the owner of the instant K site and the housing of 2nd above the ground.

A neighboring each of the above lands is located in the form of surrounding each of the above lands by Nanyang-si, N419 square meters and O road 746 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant road”).

B. On December 13, 2010, the Deceased filed an application with the Defendant for permission of development activities (hereinafter “development activities of this case”) on the installation of retaining walls of 0.5m or 8m high on the boundary line of the instant site (hereinafter “instant development activities”) pursuant to Article 56(1)1 and 2 of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 10599, Apr. 14, 201) to create the instant H and D before the instant case as farmland.

C. On August 28, 2014, the Seoul High Court filed an appeal seeking the revocation of the instant development permit and rendered a decision revoking the instant development permit on the ground that “The instant development act was aimed at creating the instant He and D B’s site, and it cannot be said that it is in harmony with the environment or landscape of the surrounding areas, such as the Defendant’s housing, etc., and it cannot be said that the instant development act was dealt with.”