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

3.Paragraph 1.

A. Under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), the Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction project partnership established for the purpose of improving the urban and residential environment and improving the quality of residential life of its members by removing buildings within 16,100.74 square meters (hereinafter “instant project zone”) of Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Bupyeong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and constructing new buildings on the site.

B. The Defendant occupies the real estate in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant real estate”) located within the instant business zone.

C. The Plaintiff established a management and disposal plan and applied for a management and disposal plan to the Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Bupyeong-gu.

Accordingly, on December 30, 2015, the head of Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Office announced the management and disposal plan on December 30, 2015, and announced it on January 4, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the main sentence of Article 81(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas, when a management and disposal plan is authorized and publicly announced, a right holder, such as the owner of the previous land or structure, shall not use the previous land or structure or benefit therefrom until the date of public announcement of transfer under Article 86 of the same Act, and a project implementer may use it

According to the above facts of recognition, see Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da22094 Decided December 22, 1992, and Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635 Decided May 27, 2010, etc., the defendant who occupies the real estate of this case is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff who acquired the right to use and benefit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted as reasonable.