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

3...

A. The Plaintiff is a cooperative established to implement a housing redevelopment improvement project for the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 80,145 square meters pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”). The Plaintiff obtained authorization from the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government for the establishment of the association on July 30, 2008; the authorization for the establishment of each association on March 14, 2013; the authorization for the establishment of each association on February 25, 2015; the authorization for the implementation of each project on July 21, 2009; the authorization for the implementation of each project on February 25, 2015; and the authorization for the implementation of the project on February 24, 2015; and the authorization for the management and disposal plan was publicly notified on February 26, 20

B. The Defendant is the owner of the building indicated in the attached list in the above improvement zone (hereinafter “instant building”).

C. On July 24, 2015, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal decided to expropriate the instant building on September 11, 2015. Accordingly, on August 25, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited the Defendant with compensation for losses as stipulated in the above expropriation ruling.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap 1-5 evidence, Gap 12-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Article 49(6) of the Act on the Determination of Grounds for Claims provides that “When a management and disposal plan is authorized and such public notice has been given, the owners of the previous land or buildings, lessees, etc. shall not use or benefit from the previous land or buildings until the date of public notice of relocation under Article 54: Provided, That this shall not apply to a right holder whose compensation has not been completed under Article 40 or the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor.”

According to the above facts, since the plaintiff completed the compensation for losses as stipulated in the proviso of Article 49 (6) of the Urban Improvement Act after the management and disposal plan under the Urban Improvement Act was authorized and announced publicly, the defendant who acquired the right to use and profit from the project implementer and the plaintiff who acquired the right