1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a cooperative that implements the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”) pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”). The Defendant is the owner of the real estate in the attached Table 6 list (hereinafter “instant church”) located within the instant rearrangement project zone, and is occupying and using it as a church.

B. On April 9, 2015, the Plaintiff received an application for parcelling-out from May 26, 2015 to July 14, 2015 with the authorization from the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government from the head of Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government to implement the project. The Plaintiff notified the Defendant that he/she can apply for parcelling-out with respect to an apartment price, not a religious site.

C. As the Defendant did not apply for parcelling-out within the above period, the Plaintiff decided to hold an extraordinary general meeting on December 22, 2015, which included the contents of the management and disposal plan including the classification of the Defendant as a cash liquidation, and on February 25, 2016, approved the above management and disposal plan by the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the above management and disposal plan was publicly notified by the head

(hereinafter “instant management and disposition plan”). D.

On October 28, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication with the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City as it did not reach an agreement after undergoing consultation with the Defendant on the compensation, etc. for the instant church. On October 28, 2016, the Seoul Regional Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the “instant adjudication”) rendered a ruling that “the Plaintiff accepted the instant church, and as the sum of the compensation for it was KRW 870,543,620 (21,375,000 for the relocation of business compensation for the building, etc.)” (hereinafter referred to as “instant adjudication”).

E. On December 14, 2016, the Plaintiff intended to pay compensation to the Defendant in accordance with the instant acceptance ruling, but refused to do so. The Plaintiff’s acceptance ruling of this case by designating the deposited person as the Defendant.