A. Defendant B delivers the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

B. Defendant C is either the Plaintiff or the Defendant.

A. On July 27, 2011, the Plaintiff obtained authorization for establishment from the head of Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office for the purpose of implementing a reconstruction project for D members of Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant project”). On August 3, 2011, the Plaintiff was a reconstruction project association which completed the registration of establishment on August 3, 201, and the authorization and notification of the management and disposal plan concerning the instant project as of October 18, 2017.

B. Defendant B is the owner of the real estate indicated in the attached list located in the instant project zone, and Defendant C is the lessee who leased the first floor of the instant building from Defendant B at KRW 23 million.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as follows: Article 81(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents provides that “When a right holder, such as the owner of the previous land or building, has publicly announced a management and disposal plan under Article 78(4), he/she shall not use or profit from the previous land or building until the date the relocation is publicly announced under Article 86.” According to the above acknowledged facts, the notice of management and disposal plan was given as of October 18, 2017 within the business area including the building in this case, so the Defendants were unable to use or profit from the building in this case.

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to deliver each floor of the instant building to the Plaintiff, while Defendant C is obligated to receive KRW 23,000,000 from Defendant B or the Plaintiff, as well as to deliver each floor of the instant building.

As to this, Defendant C asserted that it cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim without compensation, such as relocation measures, but the instant project constitutes a housing reconstruction project, and is not subject to the proviso to Article 49(6) of the Urban Improvement Act or the provisions of the Public Works Act in the case of a housing reconstruction project (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da62561, 62578, Jul. 24, 2014). Therefore, Defendant C’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. If so, the plaintiff .