1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 5, 2004, the Defendant designated and publicly announced as a residential environment improvement zone A (hereinafter “instant zone”) the Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul as a public notice D on October 5, 2004.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The content of the instant disposition is divided into 15 lots in which land within the instant zone is 5 stories or less, 15 lots in which urban planning facilities (road), and sites for urban planning facilities (parks), and 15 lots in which land is 5 stories or less, and the owners of land, etc. by each 15 lots in which the said 15 lots are demarcated by themselves, and the road and park sites are newly installed by the head of the Gu, who is the project implementer, as infrastructure

(See Article 6(1)1 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents. (b)

The Plaintiff acquired two parcels of land contained in subparagraph 301 of the instant land within the instant zone (Seoul Seomun-gu E. 15 square meters, F large 57 square meters) and four parcels of land contained in subparagraph 302 of the demarcated land (G large 2 square meters, H large 28 square meters, I large 58 square meters, J large 19 square meters, and J large 19 square meters) on November 29, 2013, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 5, 2014.

At present 301, four lots and one detached house exist on land owned by others than the plaintiff, and at 302, two lots and one multi-family house exist on land owned by others other than the plaintiff (the detailed contents are as stated in the list of owners by annexed lots). The construction of lots, road and park construction was completed around 2008, except for 301 and 302 lots.

[Ground of recognition] Uncontentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers in case of additional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, fact inquiry by the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the purport of the whole pleadings, the whole purport of arguments

2. As seen earlier in detail, the Plaintiff’s determination on the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits of the instant disposition is no longer effective since the residential environment improvement project planned in the instant disposition has been substantially terminated, and its purpose has been achieved.