1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the second floor among the buildings listed in the attached list 1.1.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), the Plaintiff is a reconstruction project association that completed the registration of incorporation on July 27, 201 with the approval of establishment from the head of Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office on July 27, 201 for the purpose of implementing a reconstruction project for members of Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant project”).

B. On September 20, 2012, the head of Gwangjin-gu approved the Plaintiff’s implementation of the instant project, and publicly notified the details thereof on September 27, 2012, and on October 18, 2017, the head of Gwangjin-gu approved the management and disposition plan formulated by the Plaintiff concerning the said project and publicly notified the details thereof.

C. The Defendant occupies 1.2 floors among the real estate in the separate sheet of real estate located within the implementation zone of the housing redevelopment project under the above management and disposal plan (hereinafter “instant building”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 6 evidence (including each number in the case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine the determination of the cause of the claim, and Article 81(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents provides that "the owner, etc. of previous land or building shall not use or benefit from the previous land or building until the date of the public announcement of the management and disposal plan under Article 78(4)." According to the above facts, the public announcement of the management and disposal plan was made as of October 18, 2017 in the business area including the building in this case, and thus, the defendant cannot use or benefit from the building in this case, and therefore is obligated to deliver the building in this case to the plaintiff.

The defendant asserts that there is no obligation to deliver without compensation for preserving the livelihood of commercial tenants. However, just because it is alleged by the defendant, the plaintiff's request for delivery cannot be refused.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.