1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details, etc. of ruling;

A. During Ansan-si, the Defendant was a cooperative established to promote a B-Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project (hereinafter “instant project”) at the size of 133,418 square meters in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Ansan-si, and the Ansan-si announced D’s announcement on September 22, 2015 and publicly notified the instant project.

B. On August 28, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased business rights from H who had been engaged in licensed real estate agents (trade name: G Licensed Real Estate Agents’ Office) in the Gu E and F during Ansan-si, which is located within the instant business area. On December 4, 2015, the Plaintiff registered the brokerage office with the Ansan-si Office and started its business from around that time.

C. On July 31, 2017, the Defendant filed an application for adjudication with the competent local Land Tribunal on July 31, 2017, which did not reach an agreement with the Plaintiff on business compensation. On March 26, 2018, the said Committee rendered an adjudication on the business compensation amounting to KRW 28,90,000, and the date of commencement of expropriation as of May 10, 2018.

(hereinafter “instant acceptance ruling”) D.

The defendant did not deposit the compensation pursuant to the ruling of acceptance of this case by May 10, 2018, which is the starting date of expropriation.

E. Meanwhile, an appraiser I (hereinafter “court appraiser”) assessed the Plaintiff’s goodwill value of KRW 32,00,000.

(hereinafter referred to as “court appraisal result”). [Ground for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the court appraisal result by the court appraiser, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. As to the plaintiff's business right, the amount of compensation determined by the expropriation ruling of this case is too low and unfair, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the difference between the amount of compensation determined by the expropriation ruling of this case and the damages for delay.

B. Defendant 1) As the Defendant did not deposit the compensation by the commencement date of expropriation, the instant adjudication on expropriation lost its validity, and on acquisition of and compensation for land, etc. for public works.