A. Defendant B, (i) among the first floor of the building listed in Section 1 of the Schedule of Real Estate attached hereto, indicated in Annex A, .

A. The Plaintiff is an association established to implement a housing redevelopment improvement project pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) by making the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu E and 345 parcel 66,084m2 as the project implementation district.

B. On November 14, 2016, the head of Nowon-gu approved the management and disposal plan to the Plaintiff, and announced it on November 17, 2016.

C. On August 25, 2017, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal rendered a ruling of expropriation on October 20, 2017 with regard to Defendant C and D as the date of commencement of expropriation. On October 18, 2017, the Plaintiff deposited the compensation for losses under the said ruling of expropriation with Defendant C and D as the depositee, respectively. On December 22, 2017, the date of commencement of expropriation was determined as February 9, 2018, and the Plaintiff deposited the compensation for losses under the said ruling of expropriation with Defendant B as the depositee on February 7, 2018.

Even after the above deposit, the defendants occupied each building specified in Paragraph 1 of the order within the plaintiff's business area as a tenant and did not comply with the plaintiff's request for extradition.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, so long as the plaintiff received the public notice of approval of a management and disposal plan under the Urban Improvement Act, the use and profit-making of the right holder, such as the owner, lessee, etc. of the previous building, shall be suspended pursuant to Article 49(3) and (6) of the Urban Improvement Act. Thus, the defendants who possess each building specified in paragraph (1) of the disposition within the project zone are obligated to deliver the above public notice

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da22094 Decided December 22, 1992, and Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635 Decided May 27, 2010, etc.) B.

The Defendants asserted that (i) the Defendants did not properly receive any compensation such as business compensation from the Plaintiff. However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff deposited the compensation for losses as determined by the acceptance ruling.