A. The Plaintiff was established pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the “Urban Improvement Act”) to implement a housing redevelopment improvement project (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”) with the members of the Daegu North-gu Seoul Northern District C Day as a prospective project implementation area, and was authorized to establish an association by the head of the Daegu Metropolitan City North-gu (hereinafter referred to as the “head of the North-gu Gu”) on January 7, 2014, and completed the registration of incorporation on January 28, 2014.

B. On March 27, 2017, the head of the North Korean territory approved the Plaintiff’s project implementation plan with the area of project implementation (hereinafter “instant project implementation district”) of 68,381 square meters in Daegu-gu, North Korea as the project implementation district (hereinafter “instant project implementation district”), and approved the Plaintiff’s management and disposition plan on June 3, 2019, and announced the said authorization on June 10, 2019.

C. The Defendant is the lessee of each real estate (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant real estate”) indicated in Section B, “Indication of the Transferred Real Estate” in the attached Table B owned by the partnership company E and F, G, and H located within the project implementation district of this case.

In accordance with the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor, the Plaintiff was rendered a ruling of expropriation on Oct. 22, 2020 on Sep. 2, 202 by the local Land Expropriation Committee of Daegu Metropolitan City on Sep. 2, 202 to compensate the Defendant for losses due to the said ruling of expropriation under the Daegu District Court No. 6245, Oct. 7, 2020, prior to the date of commencement of expropriation.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-5, 8, 9 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The plaintiff, having the status of the administrative body of the defendant, filed the lawsuit in this case even though he was well aware that there was no right to request extradition since compensation against the defendant was not completed at the time of the filing of the lawsuit in this case. Thus, the plaintiff abused the right of action.