1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a cooperative established to implement a housing redevelopment improvement project in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 51,491 square meters (hereinafter “existing improvement zone”). The Plaintiff is a person who was engaged in the spice manufacturing business (hereinafter “instant business”). The Plaintiff was a person who leased the first floor of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D ground building (hereinafter “E”) within the existing improvement zone and was engaged in the spice manufacturing business (hereinafter “instant business”).

B. The Defendant obtained project implementation authorization from the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “first project implementation authorization”) on May 30, 2008, and obtained project implementation authorization on June 26, 2014.

2. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit under the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff was engaged in the instant business in the instant place from June 2, 2004 to March 20, 2012, which was the date before the first project implementation authorization was granted; and (b) even if the instant place of business was excluded from the rearrangement zone according to the project implementation authorization, as long as the instant place of business was included in the rearrangement zone after the project implementation authorization was granted, the Plaintiff should be compensated for KRW 18,100,000 due to the business closure of the instant case.

The defendant, without going through the adjudication procedure under the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”), immediately seeks compensation for business losses against the defendant, is unlawful, and this safety defense is asserted.

Article 49 (6) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012; hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) which was enforced at the time of the closure of the pertinent administrative disposition plan and the instant business site asserted by the Plaintiff, when the authorization of the management disposition plan is notified, the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, person holding the right to lease, lease, etc. of the previous land or structure, shall transfer