The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the plaintiff 61.15 square meters of Jeonju-si's Yansan-gu C above ground and the coagu sapap house.

The costs of lawsuit.

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff is a project implementer who implements a rearrangement project in an improvement zone of 62,035.60 square meters in Donsan-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant building”), including buildings listed in paragraph (1) of the order owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant building”).

(A) On December 5, 2017, the former Mayor approved the management and disposition plan concerning the instant improvement project of the Plaintiff, and publicly announced it in the official bulletin.

(A) The Plaintiff consulted on the compensation for the instant building with the Defendant, but did not reach an agreement, filed an application for adjudication with the Governor of the Jeollabuk-do Regional Land Tribunal, which decided on January 31, 2019 to KRW 220,779,000 for land compensation for the Defendant and KRW 39,035,50 for building compensation.

(A) No. 3-2, 3). The Plaintiff refused to accept the compensation determined by the ruling of acceptance, and deposited all the compensation for the Defendant to the Jeonju District Court on March 21, 2019.

(A) The Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 81(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

The defendant asserts that since the defendant raised an objection to the compensation determined by the expropriation ruling, the acceptance ruling has not become final and conclusive, and there is no obligation to deliver the building

However, in light of the purport of Article 65(1) of the Urban Improvement Act and Article 88 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Expropriation Act”), which provides that the expropriation of land shall not be suspended due to an objection to the expropriation ruling, it is reasonable to view that the compensation for losses under Article 81(1)2 of the Urban Improvement Act has been completed even if an objection to the expropriation ruling is filed when all compensation determined by the expropriation ruling is paid.