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

A. The head of Eunpyeong-gu Office authorized the Plaintiff’s management and disposal plan established for a housing redevelopment project on September 17, 2015, and publicly announced it.

B. The Defendant is occupying the real estate indicated in the attached list in the improvement zone in which the Plaintiff implements the project.

[Evidence Evidence: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. According to the above findings of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is entitled to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents.

() As a project implementer under Article 48-2 (1) of the Act, an existing building in the project site shall be removed in accordance with the management and disposal plan authorized by the project implementer, and the defendant is unable to use or profit from the previous building pursuant to Article 49 (6), and the project implementer has a duty to deliver the pertinent building to the plaintiff who lawfully acquired the right to use or benefit from the building, except in extenuating circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635 Decided May 27, 2010). Accordingly, the Defendant asserted to the effect that it cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim before receiving the business loss compensation. However, there is no evidence to deem the Defendant as the subject of business loss compensation and there is insufficient ground to deem the instant claim to be unreasonable.

Plaintiff

claim shall be accepted.