1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a)in the first building listed in the separate sheet:

(b) Attached Form 2 of the building indicated in the attached list.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

(a) If necessary pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Urban Development Act, an implementer of an urban development project may relocate or remove buildings, etc. located in an urban development zone, and if there is anyone who occupies buildings, etc. and the relocation or removal is hindered, he/she may request the occupant to leave for the smooth realization thereof.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da89549 Decided September 4, 2014). B.

In the case of this proposal, according to each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, the facts of the reasons for the claim can be recognized.

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff, the implementer of the urban development project of this case, has been hindered from the relocation or removal of each building listed in the separate sheet. Thus, the plaintiff, the implementer of the urban development project of this case, may request the defendant to leave the above building.

Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is obliged to leave the above building.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Article 65(4) of the Urban Development Act provides that “The provisions of Articles 83 through 87 of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor shall apply mutatis mutandis to the competent Land Tribunal under Article 65(3)” and “Article 88 of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case where the Plaintiff paid the Defendant’s assertion while acquiring the Defendant’s real estate.” The Defendant filed an objection against the adjudication of expropriation with the Central Land Tribunal. The Plaintiff cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s request for eviction prior to being paid a lawful compensation.” As seen earlier, the Plaintiff deposited the compensation for losses determined by the adjudication of the local Land Tribunal (hereinafter “instant adjudication”) according to lawful procedures stipulated under Articles 38(5), 65(1) and (3) of the Urban Development Act.”