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

3...

A. The Plaintiff is an association established to implement a housing redevelopment improvement project for the housing size of 28,01 square meters in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), which was approved by the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on January 6, 2009, was approved by the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and was approved by the management and disposal plan on March 7, 2013, and was publicly notified on March 14, 2013.

B. The Defendant is the owner of the building indicated in the attached list located in the above improvement zone (hereinafter “instant building”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an application for expropriation with the local Land Tribunal in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which did not reach an agreement on the purchase of the instant building with the Defendant, who is a person subject to cash settlement who did not apply for parcelling-out.

On March 27, 2015, the committee rendered a ruling on May 15, 2015 on the commencement date of expropriation to expropriate the instant building.

On April 29, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 770,687,430 as compensation for losses under the above expropriation ruling.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 11 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, after the approval and announcement of the management and disposal plan as above, the plaintiff deposited compensation for losses pursuant to the above expropriation ruling and completed the compensation for losses under the proviso of Article 49 (6) of the Urban Improvement Act, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff who acquired the right to use and profit from the project operator.

B. As to this, the Defendant did not actually occupy the instant building and claimed that C is only possessing it.

However, since the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the building of this case, indirect possession of the Defendant’s building of this case cannot be automatically terminated, and the right to request the delivery of the building against a person who has no source of possession is not only the direct possessor.