1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the building mentioned in the attached list (1).

2. The costs of litigation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant are assessed.

1. Determination on both arguments

A. The Plaintiff obtained authorization from the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government for the establishment of housing redevelopment and rearrangement project as a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association, authorization for the implementation of the project, and authorization for the management and disposal plan on February 26, 2015, and the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly announced the above management and disposal plan on February 26, 2015, and thereafter, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 820,018,410 as compensation on September 10, 2015 with the Defendant as the deposit on September 24, 2015 according to the adjudication of expropriation by the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Metropolitan City as of July 24, 2015. Meanwhile, even though the Defendant was the original Plaintiff’s partner but was classified as the subject of liquidation due to the lack of application for parcelling-out, it may be recognized by adding the whole purport of pleadings as stated in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) owned by the Defendant to the present day.

According to these facts, in relation to the defendant, the plaintiff can be deemed to have completed all the compensation procedures under Article 46 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”). Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances

B. On the grounds stated in the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that it is impossible to comply with the Plaintiff’s request for the delivery of the instant building on the grounds as indicated in the attached Form. However, although C et al. filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the confirmation of invalidity of a management and disposition plan and for the confirmation of invalidity of an authorization for project implementation, it was sentenced to a judgment against the Seoul Administrative Court on April 1, 2016 (2015Guhap63951 and 2015Guhap69560), respectively, on the grounds that such assertion was not accepted, and thus, the instant management and disposition plan or the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office established by the Plaintiff. <