1. The judgment of the first instance, including the claims extended by this court, shall be modified as described in paragraph 2.

2. The defendant.

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment on this part of the basic facts is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The main text of Article 49(6) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017; hereinafter “former Act”) provides that “When a management and disposal plan is authorized and announced, the owners or lessees of the previous land or buildings shall not use or benefit from the previous land or buildings until the date of the public announcement of relocation under Article 54.” Thus, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, the former owners of the land or buildings shall be prohibited from using or benefit from the previous land or buildings until the date of the public announcement of the relocation under Article 54.” Thus, barring any special circumstance, the project implementer is able to use or benefit from the previous land or buildings without the procedure of separate expropriation or use (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010; 201Da85352, Dec. 26, 2013).

B. As to the defendant's assertion and judgment, the defendant asserts that because E, the owner of the building of this case, did not receive the compensation for losses deposited by the plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot accept the plaintiff's claim.

Article 49 (6) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas shall not be used or profit from the previous land and buildings until the date of the public announcement of the relocation under Article 54.