A. Defendant B marks 1, 2, 3, 6, and 1 of the attached Form 1 drawings among the real estate 1 floors listed in the attached list.

A. The Plaintiff was a cooperative established to implement an urban environment improvement project in the size of 38,508.2 square meters in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and obtained authorization to establish an association on September 21, 2012, and obtained authorization to implement an urban environment improvement project A (hereinafter “instant urban environment improvement project”) on March 17, 2015, and obtained authorization to implement an urban environment improvement project A (hereinafter “instant urban environment improvement project”), and was publicly notified by the head of Gangdong-gu on January 30, 2019.

B. The Defendants are the occupants of real estate in the Plaintiff’s urban environment rearrangement project zone, and are under possession and use by leasing each corresponding part of the text of paragraph (1).

[Reasons for Recognition] Defendant B: The absence of dispute, the entries in Gap evidence 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the remainder of the purport of the pleadings: The defendants shall be deemed as confession (Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act).

2. Article 81(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents provides that “The owner, superficies, leasee, right holder, etc. of the previous land or building shall not use or benefit from the previous land or building by the date of public announcement of the approval of the management and disposal plan under Article 78(4).”

According to the above facts, the defendants, who are real estate lessees in the district where the plaintiff's maintenance and disposal plan was approved by the head of Gangdong-gu, lost their right to use and benefit from the leased property, and the plaintiff acquired the right to use and benefit from the leased property. Thus, the defendants are obligated to deliver each real estate mentioned in

As to this, Defendant B asserted that it is necessary for Defendant B to continue residing as a small lessee, but it cannot refuse the Plaintiff’s request for extradition on the sole ground of small lessee, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge Defendant B’s lawful source of right. Thus, Defendant B’s above assertion is rejected.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified.