A. Defendant B shall have the 76.86 square meters and 90.30 square meters and 2 stories of the land floor of the building listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table attached hereto;

(b) the defendant.

A. On August 8, 2008, the Plaintiff was a housing reconstruction 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”), obtained authorization for the implementation of a management and disposal plan on January 3, 201, obtained authorization for the implementation of a project on October 17, 2013, and obtained authorization for the implementation of a management and disposal plan on July 30, 2015.

B. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet is within the above business area, and the defendants are subject to the disposition No. 1.

(a)bed;

It has been occupied until now on the lease of each real estate described in the paragraph.

[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. Judgment on deemed confession as to Defendant B (Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act)

B. According to the facts of recognition as seen earlier, 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, leasee, etc. of the previous land or building, may not use or profit from the previous land or building until the date of the public announcement of relocation under Article 54 of the Urban Improvement Act, and the project implementer may use or benefit from the former land or building (see 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 of possession to the Plaintiff, the implementer of the reconstruction project of this case, who is the implementer of the reconstruction project of this case.

(2) The Defendants’ assertion was provided with an institutional device called “pre-consultative body,” and the Plaintiff did not undergo such consultation and did not move.