1. The Defendant shall deliver to the Plaintiff each of the two floors of 66.95 square meters and 66.95 square meters of 2 stories among the real estate listed in the attached list.

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction project association with the size of 52,476 square meters in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as a project implementation district; the Plaintiff obtained authorization for the establishment of a housing reconstruction project on December 21, 2007 from the head of Gangseo-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”); the authorization for the implementation of a project on December 12, 2008; the authorization for the management and disposal plan on July 14, 2015 was granted; and the said management and disposal plan was publicly announced on July 17, 2015.

B. The Defendant is a lessee of the 2nd floor, 66.95 square meters and 66.95 square meters of 3rd floor (hereinafter “instant real estate”) among the real estate listed in the attached list in the said project implementation district.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Article 49(6) of the Act on the Determination of the Grounds for Claim provides that “When a management and disposition plan is authorized and such public notice is given, the owner of the previous land or building, lessee, etc. shall not use or benefit from the previous land or building until the date of public notice of relocation under Article 54.”

According to the above facts, the defendant whose use or profit has been suspended as a lessee pursuant to the approval and public notice of the management and disposal plan under the Urban Improvement Act is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff who acquired the right to use or profit from the real estate of this case

B. The Defendant’s assertion is alleged to the effect that the owner of the instant real estate, a lessor of the Defendant, has no obligation to deliver the instant real estate before receiving the settlement money pursuant to the exercise of the claim for sale between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant’s assertion that the owner of the instant real estate had no obligation to deliver the instant real estate before receiving the settlement money. However, the mere fact that the owner of the instant real estate, who