2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and maintenance project partnership established to improve residential environments in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government 89,853 square meters where infrastructure for rearrangement is inferior and worn-out and inferior buildings are concentrated pursuant to Article 13 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the “Urban Improvement Act”). The Defendant is a lessee who sells and repairs the building on the first floor among the buildings listed in the attached list in the above zone (hereinafter referred to as the “building in this case”).

The plaintiff was authorized to establish the association on April 21, 2009 from the head of Seongbuk-gu, the authorization to implement the project on April 4, 2013, and the authorization to implement the management and disposal plan on December 22, 2014, and was publicly notified on December 26, 2014.

On June 26, 2015, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal rendered a ruling to expropriate the building of this case for the above rearrangement project on June 26, 2015, and set the business compensation for the defendant at KRW 21,55,000.

On August 4, 2015, which was before the date of commencement of expropriation prescribed in the above ruling (on August 14, 2015), the Plaintiff deposited KRW 21,55,000 as business compensation with the Defendant as the deposited person.

【In the absence of dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including a provisional number), the purport of the entire pleadings, and Article 49(6) and (3) of the Act on Urban Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, if the management and disposal plans are authorized and publicly announced pursuant to Article 49(6) and (3) of the Act, the use and profit-making of the previous owner, lessee, etc. of the subject matter shall be suspended, and the project implementer may take over the subject matter and take profits from the subject matter to start the construction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da28394, Nov. 24, 201). Accordingly, according to the above recognition,

Whether the judgment of the defendant's assertion is invalid or not, ① the plaintiff did not notify the owner of the land, etc. of the general amount of the charges when publicly announcing the application for parcelling-out, ② before one month from the general meeting of the management and disposal plan.