1. The Defendants deliver to the Plaintiff the buildings listed in the attached list.

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

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association that obtained authorization to establish a housing redevelopment project on May 29, 2012 in order to implement a housing redevelopment project with respect to the area of 185,269.3 square meters in Ansan-si, Ansan-si.

B. The Plaintiff received authorization to implement the project on June 2, 2015 from the Ansan market, and obtained the authorization to implement the project on April 22, 2016, and was publicly notified on the same date as the authorization to implement the project.

C. Defendant B is the owner of a building indicated in the attached list located in the instant project zone (hereinafter “instant building”), who has not filed an application for parcelling-out during the period of application for parcelling-out, and Defendant C is the tenant who occupies the instant building.

The Plaintiff deposited KRW 107,500,000 as compensation for Defendant B on July 20, 2017 according to the ruling of expropriation made by the Gyeonggi-do Local Land Tribunal on June 12, 2017.

(No. 2020) / [Grounds for Recognition] No. 2017 / [No. 2020] / The entry (including the serial number) in Gap evidence No. 1 through 14, the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Determination

A. When the authorization of a management and disposal plan is publicly notified pursuant to Article 49(3) of the Urban Improvement Act, the use and profit-making of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, persons having a right to lease on the previous land or buildings, and the lessee, etc., shall be suspended pursuant to Article 49(6) of the same Act, and the project implementer shall be able to use and profit from the former land or buildings (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53

According to the above facts, according to the public notice of the approval of the management and disposal plan of this case, the owner of the real estate in the rearrangement project of this case and the defendants of tenants are suspended from the right to use and profit from the building of this case, and the plaintiff who is the project implementer of the rearrangement project of this case acquired the right to use and profit from the building of

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable and acceptable.