2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

3...

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and maintenance project partnership established pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) to implement a redevelopment project with a size of 58,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

B. On February 27, 2017, the Ansan City approved and publicly notified the Plaintiff’s management and disposal plan.

C. The defendant is the owner of the real estate listed in the attached list in the above improvement zone, who applied for parcelling-out to the plaintiff, and occupies the above real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 5-11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The main text of Article 49(6) of the Urban Improvement Act provides, “When the authorization of a management and disposition plan is publicly announced, a right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, etc. of the previous land or building, shall not use or profit from the previous land or building until the date the previous public announcement is made pursuant to Article 86.” Thus, when the approval of a management and disposition plan is publicly notified, the use or profit of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, etc. of the previous land or building, shall be suspended, and the project implementer may use or benefit from the former land or building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). Therefore, the defendant whose use or benefit as the owner has been suspended pursuant to the public announcement of the authorization

C. The defendant's assertion and judgment 1) The plaintiff and the defendant did not respond to the plaintiff's request for extradition of this case since they did not reach any agreement even though they agreed to handle the religious site in consultation.