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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. Seoul Metropolitan Government announced G around December 31, 1994, designated the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Japan as a downtown redevelopment area, and implemented the resident perusal from August 17, 1996 to the 31st of the same month in accordance with the relevant statutes and regulations.

B. The Plaintiff is an organization consisting of owners of lands, etc. with the aim of urban environment rearrangement project under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), which was being implemented at the time in question, with the aim of urban environment rearrangement project under the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

C. Around September 2014, the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government approved the Plaintiff’s management and disposal plan on the November 2015, and announced it on the 26th of the same month, and the Defendant is the occupant of the occupied part of the instant building located within the said project zone.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 3, 5, and 6 (including the branch numbers if there are virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the plaintiff is the implementer who has received the public notice of approval of the management and disposal plan under the Urban Improvement Act, and the defendant has been suspended from using and earning profit from the part occupied by the defendant pursuant to Article 49(3) and (6) of the Urban Improvement Act, so the defendant is obligated to deliver the part occupied by the defendant to the plaintiff who became entitled to use and benefit from the building of this case including

B. The defendant's assertion 10 million won as to the defendant's assertion is paid 100 million won, and is engaged in business activities in the part of the defendant's possession. The plaintiff's claim in this case without paying compensation, etc. for operating losses, such as residential relocation expenses and premium, constitutes a violation of the Constitution or an abuse of rights, and the plaintiff's claim in this case is pending in the Seoul Administrative Court.