1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association established to improve the residential environment in the area of 89,853.4 square meters in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul where infrastructure for rearrangement is inferior and worn-out and inferior buildings are concentrated 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 Defendant is the owner and occupant of the instant building and its site in the project implementation district

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 expropriate the instant building and its site for the said rearrangement project on June 26, 2015 upon the Plaintiff’s application for the adjudication of expropriation, and to set the amount of compensation for the Defendant at KRW 14,590,00 (business compensation) and KRW 371,045,560 (land compensation and goods compensation).

On August 4, 2015, prior to the date of the commencement of expropriation prescribed in the above ruling (amended by August 14, 2015), the Plaintiff deposited KRW 14,590,000 of the above compensation, and KRW 371,045,560 of the above compensation on August 10, 2015, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The defendant's judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety alleged that the lawsuit of this case brought before a ruling of acceptance was unlawful as it constitutes abuse of the right of lawsuit. Thus, as long as a ruling of acceptance was made, it cannot be viewed as abuse of the right solely on the ground that the previous lawsuit was filed in the scheduled situation. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. When the approval of a management and disposal plan is granted or a public notice is given pursuant to Article 49(6) and (3) of the Act on the Determination of Grounds for Claims, the former owner, lessee, etc. of the subject matter shall be used and profit-making.