2. Of the litigation costs, 40% is the Plaintiff, and 60% is the Defendant.

The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and maintenance project association 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”). Defendant D is a building and its site as stated in attached Table 2 and the owner and occupant of the land within the above zone.

The Plaintiff obtained authorization from the head of Seongbuk-gu Office to establish an association on April 21, 2009, and received authorization for project implementation on April 4, 2013, and received authorization for project implementation on December 22, 2014, and publicly notified the approval for the management and disposal plan on December 26, 2014.

On June 26, 2015, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal rendered a ruling to expropriate the instant building and its site for the said rearrangement project, and set compensation to the Defendant at KRW 789,835,540.

On August 10, 2015, prior to the date of commencement of expropriation prescribed by the above ruling (the date of August 14, 2015), the Plaintiff deposited the above 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 the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents to Deliver the whole purport of the pleadings, 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 therefrom to start the construction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da28394, Nov. 24, 201). According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff.

The defendant's assertion is ① When the plaintiff has obtained a written consent omitting the outline of the design of the building newly constructed by the owner of the land, etc. and the rough cost required for the removal and new construction of the building.