1. The Plaintiff:

(a) Defendant B real estate No. 2 listed in the separate sheet;

B. Defendant C is No. 3 in the same list.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 21, 2013, the Plaintiff was authorized to establish a housing reconstruction project by the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on November 21, 2013 for the purpose of implementing the housing reconstruction project for the Gangnam-gu Seoul FF, and completed the registration of incorporation under the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017; hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) on November 22, 2013.

B. On June 16, 2017, the Plaintiff received an administrative disposition plan from the head of Gangnam-gu Office, and the Plaintiff was publicly notified on June 23, 2017.

C. The Defendants are the lessees of each of the pertinent real estate listed in the separate sheet in the project zone, who reside and occupy the said real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to Article 49(6) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas, when a management and disposal plan is authorized and publicly announced, a right holder, such as the owner, superficies, a person having a right to lease on a deposit basis, and a lessee, etc. of the previous land or building, may not use or profit from the previous land or building until the date of public announcement of transfer under Article 54 of the same Act, and the project implementer may allow the person to use or profit from the former land or building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010; 2012Da62561, 62578, Jul. 24, 2014). Therefore, the Defendants whose use or profit has been suspended as a lessee pursuant to the public announcement of the management and disposal plan of this case, are obligated to deliver each of the pertinent real estate to the

B. The Defendants asserted that their respective real estate cannot be delivered until the Plaintiff provided rental housing or compensated for losses arising from emigration, such as housing relocation expenses and director expenses.

However, Article 38 (1) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas(Article 38 of the former Act).