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

3...

A. The Plaintiff is the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association whose project implementation district covers 66,094 square meters of land in Eunpyeong-gu.

On April 12, 2006, the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government announced the public inspection of residents of the improvement plan for the designation of the improvement zone. On August 16, 2007, the designation of the improvement zone was issued, the project implementation authorization was issued on May 26, 201, and the project implementation authorization was issued on November 28, 2013, and the management and disposal plan was issued on November 27, 201, and at the same time the details of the approval were publicly announced.

B. The Defendant is the owner of the real estate listed in the attached list of the above rearrangement project zone (hereinafter “instant real estate”), who is subject to cash settlement.

C. The Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication of expropriation with the local Land Tribunal in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which did not hold an agreement on compensation for the instant real estate between the Defendant and the Defendant.

On April 24, 2015, the above commission decided on June 12, 2015 on the date of expropriation of the real estate in this case, and on June 12, 2015, the amount of compensation for losses to the defendant as KRW 74,550,000. D.

On May 23, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 74,550,000 for the Defendant’s compensation for losses as Seoul Western District Court No. 2263 around May 23, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence A1 to 11, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. When a management and disposal plan under Article 49(3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents is publicly announced as to the cause of the claim, the use and profit-making by the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, etc. of the previous land or buildings, shall be suspended pursuant to Article 49(6) of the same Act, and the project implementer may use and profit from the former land or buildings (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da22094, Dec. 22, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). Therefore, the Defendant shall deliver the instant