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

3.

A. The Plaintiff is the implementer of the Housing Redevelopment and Rearrangement Project, which was established on May 20, 2010, with the Seoul Southern-gu JJ as a project implementation district, and is the partnership established on May 20, 2010. The Defendants occupied and operated the restaurant as a lessee of the real estate in the attached list located in the said project implementation district (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. The Plaintiff obtained authorization to implement the project on November 16, 2015 from the head of the competent Gu, and the authorization of the management and disposal plan on January 23, 2017 from the head of the competent Gu, and the said head of the Gu publicly notified the details of the management and disposal plan authorized on January 23, 2017.

C. On May 4, 2018, an adjudication was made on the expropriation of business compensation against Defendant L, who is the business owner of the instant building (on June 28, 2018, the date of the commencement of expropriation). On June 27, 2018, the Plaintiff deposited the full amount of compensation for losses determined by the said adjudication with Defendant L as the depositee.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's statements in Gap's Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The principle of prohibition of overlapping lawsuits under Article 259 of the Civil Procedure Act applies to cases where the subject matter of the lawsuit is the same as that of the previous lawsuit.

However, according to the evidence evidence No. 7, the subject matter of the lawsuit in the Incheon District Court case between the plaintiff and the defendant L is recognized as having been the right to claim delivery of all the second floor house on the N of the Nam-gu Incheon N, Nam-gu, and the subject matter of the lawsuit in the lawsuit in this case is obvious that the subject matter of the lawsuit in the Incheon District Court case, which was filed by the plaintiff on December 21, 2017 against the defendant L, is not identical to the subject matter of the lawsuit in this case.

Defendant L's prior defense is without merit.

After the management and disposal plan on the housing redevelopment project for the area including the instant building was authorized and publicly announced, the Defendants who lost their right to use and benefit from the said building, as long as the Plaintiff deposited the total amount of compensation for restaurant business operation in accordance with the decision of acceptance.