1. On October 28, 2016, the primary Defendant pertaining to the building of 146.2 square meters and its ground against the Plaintiff, Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”).

1. Details, etc. of ruling;

(a) Business approval and public announcement - Business name: B Housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”) - Project operator: Defendant Cooperatives - Project approval: D public announcement of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on May 7, 2015

B. The subject matter of the instant disposition of expropriation - The subject matter of the instant disposition of expropriation: Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “the subject matter of the instant expropriation”) and buildings thereon (hereinafter “the instant building”) - Compensation for losses for expropriation (hereinafter “compensation for expropriation”): 682,437,960 won: the starting date of expropriation: December 16, 2016 - The Defendant Cooperative deposited the Plaintiff as the principal deposit on November 25, 2016 on the ground that the Plaintiff intended to receive the compensation for expropriation but the Plaintiff refused to receive it (hereinafter “the instant deposit”).

(c) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection made on July 20, 2017 - Compensation for losses: 716,016,840 won - An appraisal corporation: The fact that there is no dispute over the dispute, the fact that there is no dispute over the dispute, the entry in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. Determination as to the claim against the Defendant Committee

A. The plaintiff's primary claim is that there is no refusal to receive compensation due to the disposition of acceptance of compensation for losses, and that there is no situation where the receipt of compensation for losses cannot be made.

The defendant union unilaterally made the deposit of this case for its own convenience even though the requirements for the deposit for repayment were not satisfied. The deposit of this case is null and void because it failed to meet the requirements for deposit, and so long as the deposit of this case is null and void, it constitutes "when the project operator did not pay or deposit the compensation adjudicated by the competent Land Tribunal by the commencement date of expropriation" under Article 42 (1) of the Land Compensation Act. Thus, the decision of acceptance of this case is made.