The plaintiff is an organization consisting of owners of land, etc. who conduct an urban environment improvement project by setting the size of 43281.8m2 in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as a project implementation district.

The defendant is a person who occupies the ship (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the real estate of this case") that connects each point of Section 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6.61 square meters in sequence among the attached real estate in the project area of this case and each point of Section 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of the attached Form Nos. 3.30 square meters in sequence, and section 3.30 square meters in the ship (hereinafter referred to as "the real estate of this case"), which connects each point of Section 91 square meters in sequence 91 square meters in the attached Form Nos. 91, and section A, B, C, D, and A of the attached Form Nos. 3.30 square meters in the ship (hereinafter referred to as "the real estate of this case"), among the real estate in the project area of this case.

The head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government approved the implementation of the project on September 11, 2014, and approved the management and disposal plan on November 26, 2015, and announced it on the same day.

【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including provisional parcel number circulation), and when authorization and public notice of a management and disposal plan is given pursuant to Article 49(6) and (3) of the Act on the Determination of Grounds for Claim for the purport of the entire pleadings, the use and profit-making of the previous owner, lessee, etc. of the subject matter shall be suspended, and the project implementer may take over the subject matter and use it for profit-making in order to start the construction work (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da28394, Nov. 24, 201). According to the above facts of recognition, according to

The plaintiff's non-resident's assertion is merely an association for urban environment rearrangement project, not an association for the plaintiff's urban environment rearrangement project, and the plaintiff's approval plan and project implementation authorization are invalid.

Notwithstanding its name, the Plaintiff is an organization consisting of owners of land, etc. and is prescribed in Article 13 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as