1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

The Defendant is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project partnership that obtained authorization for establishment of a housing redevelopment and improvement project on May 16, 2012 in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the "Songbuk-gu head of Seongbuk-gu") to implement housing redevelopment and rearrangement project within 15,637 square meters in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the "instant rearrangement zone"), and the Plaintiff is the owner of the land, etc. who owns the "Seoul Seongbuk-gu D Land and its ground buildings (hereinafter referred to as the "instant real estate").

The defendant has formulated a management and disposal plan concerning the improvement zone of this case, including the evaluation value, total evaluation value, estimated estimated amount of sale, etc. of the previous land and buildings based on the appraisal report, and obtained authorization from the head of Seongbuk-gu on June 17, 2019.

(hereinafter “instant management and disposition plan”). According to the instant management and disposition plan, the area of the instant real estate is “land: 24.4 square meters; road: 38.6 square meters; and building: 125.69 square meters;” and the assessed value of the previous assets is “land: 72,202,00 won; 37,635,000 won; and 33,665,955 won.”

In the survey and evaluation of the land and road parts of the Plaintiff’s assertion of legitimacy of the disposition, the following parts were surveyed and assessed on the road. However, in the case of the part (hereinafter “the main part of this case”), the management and disposal plan of this case was unlawful since the part of this case was conducted under the erroneous premise that the main part of this case was a road, since it was used as the entrance of the housing tenants, concrete eaves, septic tanks installation space, and private-wheeled parking space, and it was not used as a contribution for the passage of other residents. The real estate of this case was located at the end of the frame and there was no need to be used as a contribution for the purpose of the passage of other residents. The Plaintiff may at any time limit the passage of other persons

D. It is as shown in the attached statutes of the relevant statutes.

Facts of recognition

In this case.