A. On August 8, 2008, the Plaintiff was a housing reconstruction maintenance and improvement project association that obtained authorization from the head of Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City on August 25, 201 under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) for the purpose of promoting a housing reconstruction project in the area of 43,303 square meters in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and was authorized to implement a project on August 3, 201, and was authorized to implement a management and disposal plan on January 3, 2013, and was authorized to implement a project on October 17, 2013, and approved and announced the revision of the management and

B. The real estate stated in paragraph (1) of this Article (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is located in the above business area, and the Defendant leased and occupied the instant real estate up to now.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including each number in the case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts of recognition, when a management and disposal plan is authorized and publicly announced pursuant to Article 49(6) of the Urban Improvement Act, a right holder, such as the owner, superficies, a person having a right to lease, and a lessee, etc. of the previous land or buildings, shall not use or profit from the previous land or buildings until the date of the public announcement of transfer under Article 54 of the Urban Improvement Act, and the project implementer may use or benefit from the former land or buildings (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants, the lessee, are obligated to deliver each of the pertinent real estate indicated in the order which they

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant prepared an institutional device called “pre-consultative body” or “Urban Dispute Mediation Committee,” and the Plaintiff brought a lawsuit without going through such consultation procedures, and did not provide appropriate compensation such as moving expenses and business loss compensation.