1. The Defendant indicated the Plaintiff with a map Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 on the ground of 2,12 square meters in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a project implementer of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Dawon D Public Housing Project (hereinafter “instant project”), and the said district was designated and publicly notified by the Minister of Construction and Transportation as a public housing zone on June 29, 2016 pursuant to Article 6 of the Special Act on Public Housing.

B. The Plaintiff completed the registration of the transfer of ownership on October 19, 2018 and October 23, 2018 with respect to the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City 2,112 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) located in the instant project district, on the ground that consultation with the public land was acquired.

(c)

The Defendant is the owner of each of the obstacles listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 attached hereto (hereinafter “each of the instant plastic houses”) and the separate sheet Nos. 99 square meters in a plastic house (hereinafter “each of the instant plastic houses”) and attached sheet Nos. 2, 50 square meters in a plastic house and the same map No. 550 square meters in a greenhouse (A), 6, 7, 8, and 5.

The defendant occupies each of the greenhouses of this case.

(d)

The Central Land Expropriation Committee, on May 9, 2019, rendered a ruling on the date of commencement of expropriation on July 3, 2019 to transfer KRW 16,57,00 for each of the instant vinyls, and KRW 10,656,250 for each of the instant obstacles to KRW 10,65,00. On June 25, 2019, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 27,23,250 for the Defendant.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts as to the request for the delivery of each of the instant vinyls, the Defendant continued to possess each of the instant vinyls even after the completion of the compensation therefor, thereby infringing on the Plaintiff’s ownership of the instant land, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff compensated for the price of the goods compensated at the price of the goods compensated for. We do not clearly dispute the Defendant’

(e).