1. The Defendant: (a) is of the 838m2 in Northern-gu, Northern-si; (b)

(a) in sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1 of the Appendix No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,6, and 1.

1. Case summary and judgment

A. The Plaintiff, as the implementer of the “A urban development project” (hereinafter “instant project”), which is proceeding with the replotting method in the north-Gu Do Do Do Do Do Do Do (hereinafter “instant project”), was designated as the relevant land substitution plan on September 20, 2017 after obtaining authorization of the land substitution plan on September 20, 2017. The Defendant occupied the office and the repair store building indicated in paragraph (1) of this Article (hereinafter “instant building”) located in the north-gu Do Da 838 square meters in the instant project area, and the fact that the Plaintiff obtained the permission of the port distribution market pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Urban Development Act in order to relocate or remove the instant building is not disputed between the parties or is recognized by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of pleadings as indicated in subparagraphs A through 9.

B. If necessary under Article 38(1) of the Urban Development Act, an implementer of an urban development project designating reserved land for replotting may relocate or remove buildings, etc. located in an urban development zone, and if there is any person occupying buildings, etc. and such relocation or removal is hindered, he/she may request the occupant to withdraw from the building in this case for the smooth realization thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da89549, Sept. 4, 2014). Barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to leave the building in this case upon the Plaintiff’s request

C. On this point, the Defendant asserted that the claim in this case cannot be complied with because it is not appropriate to compensate for the implementation of the project in this case. However, the Defendant’s assertion to increase the compensation can be presented through the procedure of adjudication on expropriation (Evidence A8) that is in progress separately from this case or the procedure of future objection to the result of the above adjudication on expropriation. The Plaintiff cannot be a ground for preventing the Plaintiff from filing the claim in this case seeking to withdraw to the Defendant pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Urban Development Act. Thus, the above assertion is rejected.

2. The plaintiff's conclusion