2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Defendant is a cooperative established to implement a housing redevelopment improvement project in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 51,491 square meters (hereinafter “existing improvement zone”). The Plaintiff is a person who is engaged in the sprinking manufacturing business (hereinafter “instant business”) with the trade name of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D1 Floor (hereinafter “E”) located in the existing improvement zone and operated the sprink manufacturing business (hereinafter “instant business”).

B. The Defendant obtained project implementation authorization from the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “first project implementation authorization”) on May 30, 2008, and obtained project implementation authorization on June 26, 2014.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. On June 2, 2004, before three years prior to the designation of the rearrangement zone for the existing rearrangement zone, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant moved to another place after closing the instant business on March 20, 2012, after obtaining authorization for the first project implementation on May 30, 2008 after obtaining authorization for the implementation of the management and disposal plan on February 17, 2012. Even if the instant place of business was excluded from the rearrangement zone due to the designation of the rearrangement zone and the authorization for the alteration of the implementation thereof, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for business loss of KRW 18,100,000 due to the closure of the instant business, as long as the instant place of business was included in the existing rearrangement zone at the time of the first project implementation authorization.

B. The instant lawsuit seeking compensation for business losses against the Defendant without going through the adjudication procedure under the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”) is unlawful.

C. We examine the determination, the date of the management and disposal plan as asserted by the Plaintiff and the date of the closure of the instant business site, which was enforced at the time of the closure of the relevant business site (amended by Act No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012; hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).