1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On March 2015, according to an agreement with the Defendant, the Plaintiff is entitled to land C in the original city owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant land”).

(2) The Defendant, around January 2018, has occupied and operated the said land as a farm with heavy costs, such as installing various facilities, water bags, spawneds, small lakes, ponds, etc. within the said real estate site, and planting trees. (2) In the event that the instant land is incorporated into the expansion package of the original city around January 2018, the Defendant received compensation from the original city for the obstacles installed within the farm as described in the said paragraph (1) in the future (hereinafter “instant compensation”).

(3) The Defendant agreed to pay all the Plaintiff the compensation for the instant land and its obstacles from the original city, but did not pay it to the Plaintiff in full. Of the aforementioned unpaid compensation, 50,000,000 and damages for delay are the violation of the agreement or unjust enrichment set forth in paragraph (2) above, and is obligated to pay or return it to the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff's assertion will be selected to seek the responsibility for default due to breach of the agreement or the responsibility for return of unjust enrichment.

B. The defendant's assertion that the land of this case was received from the original city of the original city is 70,916,400 won, less the remainder of KRW 916,400,000, less than the remainder of KRW 916,400, which the defendant established or cultivated by the defendant, and thus, the plaintiff is not obliged to pay the additional amount to the plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. We examine the existence of liability due to the breach of the contract, and the land of this case is incorporated into the D Pepends Corporation, and the defendant received compensation for obstacles within the above land from the original city as the land was expropriated. Of the above compensation, the fact that the defendant deposited KRW 35,00,000 out of the above compensation to the E deposit account, the spouse of the plaintiff's spouse, is disputed between the parties.