A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment improvement project association established to implement a housing redevelopment project with the area of 80,145 square meters in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and obtained authorization from the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on July 30, 2008; authorization for the establishment of the association on February 13, 2015; authorization for the establishment of the association on July 21, 2009; authorization for the implementation of the project on February 25, 2015; and authorization for the implementation of the project on February 24, 2015; and obtained authorization for the management and disposal plan pursuant to Article 49 (2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”); and the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly announced the above management and disposal plan on February 26, 2015.

B. The Defendant leased and occupied part (A) of the attached Form Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 in sequence connected each point among the 1st floor of the building indicated in the attached Form No. 4 located within the rearrangement zone from D. 29.75 square meters.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 10, 11, 14 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. When the determination of the management and disposal plan regarding the cause of the claim is publicly notified, a right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leaseer, etc. of the previous land or structure, may not use or profit from the previous land or structure until the date of the public announcement of transfer under Article 54 of the Urban Improvement Act (Article 49(6) of the Urban Improvement Act). According to the above facts, the defendant occupies the above real estate located within the project implementation district, and thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver

B. As the defendant's argument is invalid, the above management and disposition plan is invalid, and both the business action plan and the association establishment authorization are invalid, the plaintiff has no right to seek delivery to the defendant, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's above argument, and the defendant's above argument is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the instant claim is reasonable.