1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Pursuant to Article 13 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), the Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association established to improve a residential environment in the size of 89,853 square meters in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seoul, where infrastructure for rearrangement is inferior and worn-out and inferior buildings are concentrated. Defendant D is the owner and occupant of the building listed in attached Table 6 (hereinafter “instant No. 1”) and its site located in the said project implementation district. Defendant E is the owner and occupant of the building listed in attached Table 7 (hereinafter “instant No. 2”) and its site owner and occupant.

B. The Plaintiff received the authorization from the head of Seongbuk-gu Office to establish an association on April 21, 2009, the authorization to implement the project on April 4, 2013, the authorization to implement the project on December 22, 2014, respectively, and the authorization to implement the management and disposal plan was publicly notified on December 26, 2014.

C. On June 26, 2015, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal rendered a ruling to accept the instant building Nos. 1 and 2 as well as their respective sites for the said rearrangement project on June 26, 2015 upon the Plaintiff’s application for the adjudication of expropriation, with the purport that the compensation for Defendant D shall be KRW 210,809,780, and that the compensation for Defendant E shall be KRW 219,664,330.

On August 10, 2015, prior to the date of commencement of expropriation prescribed by the above ruling (on August 14, 2015), the Plaintiff deposited each of the above compensations with the Defendants as the deposited parties.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 to 5, and Gap's 7 evidence (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendants’ judgment on the main safety defense of the Defendants asserted that the instant lawsuit filed before a ruling of acceptance was unlawful as it constitutes abuse of the right of lawsuit. As such, once a ruling of acceptance was rendered, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants’ assertion is an abuse of the right of lawsuit solely on the ground that the said ruling of acceptance was filed prior to the scheduled situation. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3. Determination on the cause of the claim.