A. Defendant B shall display 2, 3, 6, 7, and 2 of the attached Form 10 drawings among the real estate 1 floors listed in the attached Table 5 list.

A. The Plaintiff is an association established for the purpose of implementing a housing redevelopment improvement project with the scale of 50,048 square meters in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as a project implementation district; the Plaintiff obtained authorization to establish the association on October 9, 2009 from the head of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; the authorization to implement the project on December 21, 201; and the authorization to implement the management and disposal plan on February 27, 2014; and the head of Seongdong-gu publicly notified the above management and disposal plan.

B. The Defendants leased and possess each real estate listed in Paragraph (1) of this Article (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”), and each real estate of this case is included in the business zone of the housing redevelopment project of this case.

[Ground for recognition] Facts that there is no dispute or do not clearly dispute, and Gap 1-5 evidence 2. Determination

A. According to the main sentence of Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), where a management and disposal plan is authorized and announced publicly, 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 announcement of relocation under Article 54.

According to the above facts of recognition, since the authorization and public notice of the management and disposal plan of the plaintiff was made, the defendants, who are the lessees of real estate in the project implementation district, are obligated to deliver each of the real estate of this case to the plaintiff who acquired the right to use and benefit

B. As to Defendant B’s assertion, Defendant B had engaged in the business of lending video and books by leasing three partitions of stores from November 1, 2004. Since the amount of KRW 15,405,00, which was determined by the adjudication of expropriation, is under dispute and waiting for the Central Land Expropriation Committee’s decision, Defendant B’s claim cannot be complied with. Thus, the Plaintiff’s written adjudication and deposit documents submitted by the Plaintiff after the closing of argument are examined.