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

3...

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association whose project implementation area covers 66,094 square meters in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government. The Plaintiff obtained authorization for the implementation of the project on May 26, 201 from the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the authorization for the implementation of the project on November 28, 201, the authorization for the implementation of the project on November 28, 2013, and the confirmation for the management and disposal of the project on November 27, 2014, and the head of Eunpyeong-gu publicly notified the details of the authorization for the management

The defendant is the lessee who occupies the building in the attached list located in the improvement zone of the plaintiff.

B. Around December 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication on expropriation of the buildings listed in the separate sheet, and the Seoul Regional Land Tribunal rendered a ruling on April 24, 2015 to expropriate the said buildings at KRW 88,900,000 on June 12, 2015 with the date of commencement of expropriation as of June 12, 2015.

On June 2, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited the said amount to D, the owner of the said building.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry in Gap 1 through 12 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant lost the right to use or benefit from the building listed in the separate sheet pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, and the plaintiff, who is the project implementer, acquired the right to dispose of or use the above building for the implementation of the rearrangement project, has the duty

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff could not respond to the plaintiff's claim on the grounds that the plaintiff was not entitled to the payment of the cost of moving a house by unfairly restricting the tenant who is subject to the payment of the cost of moving a house on April 12, 2006 to the occupant on July 17, 2008.

However, the above argument by the defendant cannot be viewed as a ground for defense against the plaintiff's claim for delivery of this case. Thus, the above argument is without merit without examining further.