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. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of the parts to be determined by the court of first instance as set forth in the following 2, thereby citing this in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. Article 16 and Article 17 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects provides that a project implementer shall faithfully consult with landowners and persons concerned about compensation for land, etc., and shall enter into a contract with owners of land and persons concerned when the agreement has been reached. An additional center city corporation, which is a project implementer of an urban environment rearrangement project regarding the district C including the store in this case, entered into a contract with the Plaintiff and a landowner without consultation with the related tenants in violation of the above Acts, and set the purchase price differently on the condition of the name of the tenant. This constitutes an act of anti-social order and thus, the above land sales contract is null and void, and the Plaintiff cannot seek the delivery of the store in this case to the Defendant based on the above land sales contract which is null and void, and the validity of the land sales contract cannot be asserted by the Defendant, who is a third party, based on the above land sales contract, as well as the validity of the land sales contract cannot be accepted.

B. For commercial tenants, such as the Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion of violation of the good faith principle, the business operator is entitled to compensate for business losses pursuant to Article 47(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects.