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

A. The head of Eunpyeong-gu Office authorized the Plaintiff’s management and disposal plan established for a housing redevelopment project on September 17, 2015, and publicly announced it.

B. The Defendant owns the real estate listed in the attached Table 4 within the rearrangement zone in which the Plaintiff implements the project.

C. On May 27, 2016, the Plaintiff received a ruling of expropriation from the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City as of July 15, 2016, and deposited KRW 595,662,850 against the Defendant as of July 14, 2016 as the amount of compensation determined by the ruling of expropriation.

[Evidence Evidence: Facts without dispute, Gap's 3, 5-4, 6, 7, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. According to the above findings of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is entitled to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents.

() As a project implementer under Article 48-2 (1) of the Act, an existing building in the project site shall be removed in accordance with the management and disposal plan authorized by the project implementer, and the defendant is unable to use or profit from the previous building pursuant to Article 49 (6), and the project implementer has a duty to deliver the pertinent building to the plaintiff who lawfully acquired the right to use or benefit from the building, except in extenuating circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635 Decided May 27, 2010). Accordingly, the Defendant raised an objection against the adjudication of expropriation by the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim before receiving compensation for KRW 910 million with a reasonable amount of compensation. However, once an objection or administrative litigation is filed after the effect of expropriation, it is difficult to deem the Plaintiff’s claim to be unreasonable solely on the ground that the Plaintiff’s claim is not unreasonable.

Plaintiff

claim shall be accepted.