1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details, etc. of ruling;

A. Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government is a project implementer of a DNA development project (urban planning facility project; hereinafter “instant project”).

On December 6, 2012, the head of Seocho-gu approved and publicly notified the implementation plan of the project of this case (Seo-gu E), and on December 20, 2012, the head of Seocho-gu announced the revision of the implementation plan.

(Seo-gu Notice F). (b)

The building "Seoul Seocho-gu (1-4) 29.5 square meters of the board structure building" (hereinafter "the building of this case") included in the instant business area is an unregistered unauthorized building.

At the time of the public announcement of the amendment to the instant project implementation plan, C was residing in the instant building.

C. On March 7, 2013, the head of Seocho-gu rendered a public announcement on the inspection of the compensation plan for the instant building (the owner of the attached goods protocol shall be written in C), and the Plaintiff did not raise an objection in writing within the inspection period.

As the head of Seocho-gu filed an application for adjudication of expropriation with the defendant on December 20, 2013, when the consultation on compensation for the building of this case did not lead to an agreement on compensation, the head of Seocho-gu filed an application with the defendant

(hereinafter referred to as “instant adjudication”): - The date of commencement of expropriation: February 7, 2014 - Compensation for losses: 31,825,000 won - Owners: C

E. On February 6, 2014, the head of Seocho-gu deposited KRW 31,825,000 for the adjudication on expropriation of the instant building by designating C or the Plaintiff as the principal deposit pursuant to Article 40(2)2 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”) and the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act on the grounds that it is impossible to identify the person entitled to the compensation because C and the Plaintiff asserted that they are the owners of the instant building.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 9, 11 and 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant 1 is not the owner of the building without permission of this case, and the plaintiff can seek the revocation of the ruling.