1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s claim on the principal lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff).

1. On July 2, 2015, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s filing of the instant appeal for subsequent completion on September 23, 2015, when he/she became aware of the existence of the judgment of the first instance court (Seoul Western District Court 2015Kadan51096), even though he/she had become aware of the existence of the judgment of the first instance court at the time of enforcement of the provisional disposition prohibiting the possession or transfer of a rooftop 74.27 square meters of the rooftop tower of the building indicated in the attached list, is unlawful.

Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant did not know of the service of the judgment without negligence if the document of the judgment was served by public notice, the complaint, the original copy of the judgment, etc., and in such a case, the defendant falls under the case where it is impossible to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, he/she may file an appeal to correct it within

The term "after the cause has ceased to exist" refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice, instead of the fact that the party or legal representative was not simply aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice. Thus, barring any other special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice only when the party or legal representative

Therefore, it is difficult to view that the Defendant knew of the fact that the judgment of the first instance court was served at that time due to the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge

The subsequent appeal of this case is deemed lawful.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. Fact 1) The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association whose project implementation district covers 66,094m2 in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government. On November 27, 2014, the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly announced the approval of the management and disposal plan for the Plaintiff at the same time. 2) The Defendant is written in the attached list located in the Plaintiff’s project implementation district.