2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

A. On September 9, 2008, the Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association that obtained authorization for the establishment of a project under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

B. The head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly announced the project implementation authorization on March 20, 2014 to the Plaintiff, and publicly announced the project implementation authorization on October 13, 2015, and on March 31, 2016, the head of Seongbuk-gu announced the project implementation authorization on March 31, 2016.

C. The Defendant is the lessee of the real estate as stated in the Disposition No. 1 located in the project implementation district.

The Plaintiff paid compensation for losses to the Defendant on September 3, 2018 according to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Expropriation Committee’s ruling on July 27, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. When a public notice of a management and disposal plan under Article 49(3) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017) is given, the use and profit of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leaseer, etc., of the previous land or buildings, shall be suspended, and the project implementer may use and profit from the former land or buildings (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da22094, Dec. 22, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate stipulated in the main sentence of paragraph (1) that the Defendant possesses to the Plaintiff who acquired the right to use and benefit in accordance with

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.