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

3.Paragraph 1.

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association established with the Dong-gu Daejeon Special Metropolitan City 103,429.8 square meters as a project implementation district, and the Defendant is the owner of the real estate indicated in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. The Plaintiff obtained authorization to establish an association on April 6, 2015; obtained authorization to implement the project on June 7, 2017; and obtained authorization to implement the project on February 26, 2018 from the head of the Daejeon Metropolitan City Dong-gu; and the head of the Daejeon Metropolitan City Dong-gu on the same day.

C. On October 12, 2018, the Plaintiff was adjudicated by the Daejeon Metropolitan City Land Expropriation Committee to expropriate the real estate in the project area including the instant real estate on November 13, 2018. On November 7, 2018, the Plaintiff deposited all the compensation determined by the said adjudication with the Defendant as the depositee.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2-2, 6, 11, 12-4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the main sentence of Article 81(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), when a management and disposal plan is authorized and publicly announced, a right holder, such as the owner of a previous parcel of land or structure, shall not use or benefit from the previous parcel of land or structure until the date of public announcement of relocation under Article 86 of the same Act, and the project implementer may use or benefit from

When a management and disposition plan prescribed in the Urban Improvement Act is authorized and publicly announced, the use and profit of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leaseer, etc. of the previous land or buildings, shall be suspended, and the project implementer may use and profit from such plan (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). In light of the above legal principles, the management and disposition plan concerning the Plaintiff’s rearrangement project was approved and publicly announced as seen earlier, and the Plaintiff deposited all the compensation for the Defendant in accordance with the above expropriation ruling.