2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association established to improve the residential environment in the area of 89,853.4 square meters in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul where infrastructure for rearrangement is inferior and worn-out and inferior buildings are concentrated pursuant to Article 13 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”). The Defendant is the owner of the instant building located in the project area

B. The Plaintiff received the authorization from the head of Seongbuk-gu Office to establish an association on April 21, 2009, the authorization to implement the project on April 4, 2013, the authorization to implement the project on December 22, 2014, respectively, and the authorization to implement the management and disposal plan was publicly notified on December 26, 2014.

C. On June 26, 2015, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal rendered a ruling to expropriate the instant building and its site for the said rearrangement project, and set compensation for the Defendant at KRW 334,889,200.

On August 10, 2015, prior to the date of commencement of expropriation prescribed by the above ruling (the date of August 14, 2015), the Plaintiff deposited the above compensation with the Defendant as the deposited person.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The defendant's judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety alleged that the lawsuit of this case brought before a ruling of acceptance was unlawful as it constitutes abuse of the right of lawsuit. Thus, as long as a ruling of acceptance was made, it cannot be viewed as abuse of the right solely on the ground that the previous lawsuit was filed in the scheduled situation. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Where the approval of a management and disposal plan is approved or announced pursuant to Article 49(6) and (3) of the Act on the Determination of Grounds for Claims, the use and profit-making of the former owner, lessee, etc. of the subject matter shall be suspended, and the project implementer shall be able to take over the subject matter and use the subject matter for profit-making in order to start the project.