1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the claim for removal shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's lawsuit corresponding to the revocation shall be dismissed

2.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Pursuant to Articles 3 and 11 of the Urban Development Act, the Plaintiff is a public corporation selected as the project implementer of the Gyeyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Urban Development Project (hereinafter “instant urban development project”) with respect to 1,160,641 square meters (hereinafter “640,600 square meters”).

B. On February 10, 2017, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer under Article 16038 for the instant land, which was included in the instant urban development project zone, based on the expropriation on January 3, 2017.

C. The Defendant owned the instant obstacles on the instant land and provided waste collection and transportation services. The Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to transfer the obstacles, but did not reach an agreement on the grounds of the amount of compensation, etc., and the Plaintiff applied for adjudication of expropriation to the Central Land Expropriation Committee.

On February 9, 2017, the Central Land Tribunal rendered a ruling that the Plaintiff’s transfer of obstacles to the instant urban development project and the compensation for business suspension shall be KRW 89,470,00, KRW 160,532,50, and KRW 250,02,50 in total shall be compensation for losses.

On March 27, 2017, according to the above ruling, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 250,002,50,500 with the Defendant as the principal deposit account in the amount of gold No. 1058 in 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) In cases where the administrative agency can realize the performance of the duty of alternative act, such as the removal of buildings, by means of administrative vicarious execution, in recognition of the procedures for judgment on the request for removal under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the agency may not seek the performance of the duty by means

Supreme Court Decisions 90Da18909 Decided November 13, 1990; 99Da18909 Decided May 12, 200; 2016Da213916 Decided April 28, 2017, etc.