A. The Plaintiff (Withdrawal) Co., Ltd. is the implementer of the urban environment improvement project in the zone (hereinafter “instant improvement project”) under the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017; hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), and was authorized to implement the project on December 28, 2015, and the said authorization was publicly announced on the same day.

B. The Defendant is a lessee who occupies a part of 25.7 square meters in the ship (hereinafter “the part of the instant building”) that connects each point of the attached Form No. 2,3,4,12,13, and 2 among the 1st floor of the building located within the instant rearrangement project zone.

C. In accordance with the provisions of the former Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant on compensation for the instant building.

However, on October 2017, the plaintiff applied for the adjudication of expropriation to the local Land Expropriation Committee of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and on January 26, 2018, the local Land Expropriation Committee of Seoul Special Metropolitan City decided on March 16, 2018.

On the other hand, the owners of land, etc. within the instant rearrangement project zone held an extraordinary general meeting on February 22, 2018 and changed the Plaintiff’s successor to the Plaintiff to the new implementer of the instant rearrangement project, and the said change was reported to the head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government around March 2018 and accepted the said change.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to deliver the part of the building of this case to the plaintiff succeeding intervenor who succeeded to the rights and obligations of the plaintiff who is the former project implementer in relation to the rearrangement project of this case

B. On this ground, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's successor cannot respond to the claims before receiving the legitimate business loss compensation.

The former Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Public Works Projects.