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

3...

A. The Plaintiff obtained authorization for the establishment of a housing redevelopment project (hereinafter “instant redevelopment project”) within the zone of the Busan East-gu Seoul metropolitan improvement project (hereinafter “instant redevelopment project”) from the head of the Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City on April 28, 2006, and obtained authorization for the establishment of the project plan on May 12, 2010, and the approval for the change of the project implementation plan on August 29, 2014, and obtained application for parcelling-out based on this.

B. On July 20, 2015, the Plaintiff received the approval of the management and disposal plan from the head of the Dong, and the head of Dong/Dong publicly notified the approval of the management and disposal plan on July 29, 2015.

C. The Defendant is the owner of the building indicated in the attached list within the instant redevelopment project zone (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”). The Defendant did not apply for parcelling-out.

On February 20, 2017, the Busan Metropolitan City Regional Land Expropriation Committee decided to expropriate the instant building on May 4, 2017, the date of expropriation. On May 1, 2017, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 280,550,000 to the Defendant on May 1, 2017 as compensation under the above expropriation ruling.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant asserts that although D was elected as the president of the Plaintiff’s association and reappointed after the expiration of its term of office, it was not authorized by the head of the Gu to change the establishment of the association, as well as that D was not entitled to represent the Plaintiff, such as by misrepresenting the false academic background in the election of the president of the association, and thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it was instituted by a person without the power of representation.

However, even according to the defendant's argument, since D is reappointed by being elected as the president of the plaintiff's association, it is difficult to view that D's authorized matters related to the establishment of the association have changed, and since there is no evidence to prove that D's misrepresentation of false academic background in the election of the president of the association, it is not acceptable to

3. Matters concerning the merits.