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

3...

A. The Plaintiff is the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association established to implement a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project with the size of 89,853m2 as a project implementation district of Seongbuk-gu.

The Plaintiff was authorized by the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to establish an association on April 21, 2009, the authorization to implement the project on April 4, 2013, and the management and disposal plan under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) on December 22, 2014.

The head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly announced the management and disposal plan on December 26, 2014.

B. The Defendant occupies the pertinent building as the owner of the building indicated in the attached list within the said project implementation district (hereinafter “instant building”).

C. On June 26, 2015, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal rendered a ruling to expropriate the building of this case for the above improvement project and set compensation for the Defendant.

The Plaintiff deposited compensation for losses with the Defendant as a depositee before the date of commencement of expropriation ( August 14, 2015) prescribed in the above ruling.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 5 evidence (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant asserts that the instant lawsuit was unlawful since it was filed in a situation where no adjudication to accept the instant lawsuit was rendered, since it constitutes an abuse of right of action.

Before rendering a ruling of acceptance on June 26, 2015, the fact that the instant lawsuit was filed is obvious in the record.

However, as long as a ruling of acceptance has been made later, the mere fact that a lawsuit was filed before the scheduled situation does not constitute abuse of power, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. Article 49(6) of the Act on the Determination of the Grounds for Claim provides that “When a management and disposal plan is authorized and such notice has been given, the previous land.”