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

3...

A. The Plaintiff is the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association whose project implementation district covers 66,094 square meters of land in Eunpyeong-gu.

On April 12, 2006, the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government announced the public inspection of residents of the improvement plan for the designation of the improvement zone. On August 16, 2007, the designation of the improvement zone was issued, the project implementation authorization was issued on May 26, 201, and the project implementation authorization was issued on November 28, 2013, and the management and disposal plan was issued on November 27, 201, and at the same time the details of the approval were publicly announced.

B. The Defendant is the owner of the real estate listed in the attached list of the above rearrangement project zone (hereinafter “instant real estate”), who is subject to cash settlement.

C. The Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication of expropriation with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Expropriation Committee, which did not reach an agreement on compensation for the instant real estate between the Defendant. On April 24, 2015, the said Committee rendered a ruling of expropriation that, on June 12, 2015, the Plaintiff accepted each land and obstacles within the project zone, and among them, the amount of compensation for the Defendant’s losses shall be determined as KRW 250,134,950.

On May 29, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 250,134,950 as Seoul Western District Court Decision 2307 on May 29, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 12, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant asserts that the instant lawsuit constitutes abuse of the right of action or violation of the good faith principle on the grounds that the instant lawsuit constitutes abuse of the right of action or the instant lawsuit on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s claim for delivery may interfere with the Defendant’s appeal procedure for realizing his/her right (e.g., adjudication procedure and the increase in the amount of compensation for losses) although the procedure for the adjudication of acceptance was not carried out at the time of the instant lawsuit.

However, it is so argued by the Defendant.