The plaintiff is an organization consisting of owners of land, etc. who conduct an urban environment improvement project by setting the size of 43281.8m2 in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as a project implementation district.

The Defendant operates a pharmacy in the section (B) of 132.23 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) connected with each point of the attached Form 3 drawings Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 5 among the 1st floor of the real estate in the said project implementation district.

The head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government approved the implementation of the project on September 11, 2014, and approved the management and disposal plan on November 26, 2015, and announced it on the same day.

On July 28, 2017, the Plaintiff received a ruling of expropriation on the instant real estate from the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on July 28, 2017, and deposited KRW 86,086,00 to the Defendant on August 31, 2017, which is the date of commencement of expropriation.

【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 8, 9 (including provisional number), and the purport of the entire pleadings, and where a management and disposal plan is authorized and publicly notified pursuant to Article 49(6) and (3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), the former owner and lessee of the subject matter shall be suspended from using and gaining profits from the subject matter, and the project implementer shall be able to take over the subject matter and use and gain profits from the subject matter to start the construction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da28394, Nov. 24, 201). According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant, who received compensation for losses, is obligated to

Although the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is an illegal organization and is not capable of being a party, there is no evidence to recognize the defendant's argument.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the plaintiff is not the promotion committee, which is the pre-stage stage of establishing an association under Article 13 of the Urban Improvement Act, but the proviso of Article 13(1) of the Urban Improvement Act.