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 an urban environment rearrangement project association established to implement an urban environment rearrangement project in which the Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo District is a project implementation district (hereinafter referred to as the “instant rearrangement project”).

After receiving the project implementation authorization from the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on July 26, 2012, the Plaintiff was subject to the approval of the project implementation on July 7, 2015, and the management and disposal plan was publicly announced on July 9, 2015.

B. The Defendant, as the owner of the instant real estate located within the business zone of the instant rearrangement project, occupies the instant real estate.

[Ground for recognition] Confession (the defendant is deemed to have led to the confession of the plaintiff's assertion because he did not appear on the date for pleading in the first instance court and did not submit the reply and other preparatory documents, etc.). The appellate court only sought a judgment of dismissing the plaintiff's claim, but did not give any reply to the facts alleged by the plaintiff as the cause for pleading and did not appear on the date for pleading. Thus, the appellate court shall also be deemed to have led to confession (see, e.g., Articles 150 (1) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Act and Supreme Court Decisions 89Meu4045, Jul. 2

2. The main text of Article 49(6) of the Act on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments provides that “When a management and disposition plan is authorized and such public notice is given, the owner of the previous land or building, lessee, etc. shall not use or benefit from the previous land or building until the date of public notice of relocation under Article 54.”

Accordingly, when a management and disposal plan is authorized and publicly announced, the former owner’s use and profit-making of the subject matter is suspended, so the project implementer can use and profit from the subject matter without any separate procedure of expropriation or use (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Da85352, Dec. 26, 2013; 2009Da28394, Nov. 24, 201). Accordingly, the Defendant, the project implementer of the instant rearrangement project, is the Plaintiff, who is the project implementer of the instant rearrangement project.