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

A. On April 21, 2009, the Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association that has obtained authorization for establishment of the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

B. On April 11, 2013, the Plaintiff obtained authorization from the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to implement the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 89,853.40 square meters, and was authorized to implement the management and disposition plan on December 22, 2014 (hereinafter “instant management and disposition plan”). This was publicly notified on December 26, 2014.

C. The Defendant has occupied up to now 106.45 square meters of one story among the buildings listed in attached Table 1 in the attached Table 1 within the instant enforcement zone.

(hereinafter referred to as “the occupied part of this case”). 【The ground for recognition / [the ground for recognition] does not dispute, each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Article 49(6) of the Act on the Determination of the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim provides that “When a management and disposition plan is authorized and such public notice is given, the owner of the previous land or building, lessee, etc. may not use or benefit from the previous land or building until the date of the public notice of relocation under Article 54: Provided, That the same shall not apply to the case of a right holder whose consent is obtained from a project operator or whose compensation is not completed under Article 40 and the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public

Comprehensively taking account of the facts acknowledged in paragraph (1), since the management and disposal plan under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas has already been authorized and announced, the defendant is obligated to deliver the portion of possession to the plaintiff who acquired the right to use and benefit from

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da62561, Jul. 24, 2014). (B)

In regard to the judgment on the defendant's assertion, the defendant did not complete the compensation for losses against the defendant.