1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate stated in the attached list.

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

3...

1. Basic facts

(a) The head of Mapo-gu Office approves the plaintiff's management and disposal plan established for the urban environment rearrangement project on July 7, 2015;

7. 9. The notice was made.

B. The Defendant is occupying the real estate indicated in the attached list in the improvement zone in which the Plaintiff implements the project.

C. On February 26, 2016, the Plaintiff received a ruling of expropriation from the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City as of April 15, 2016, and deposited KRW 429,203,940 as Seoul Western District Court Decision of expropriation in the future, the owner of the said real estate, around April 11, 2016.

[Evidence Evidence: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. According to the above findings of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is entitled to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents.

() As a project implementer under Article 48-2 (1) of the Act, an existing building in the project site shall be removed in accordance with the management and disposal plan authorized by the project implementer, and the defendant is unable to use or profit from the previous building pursuant to Article 49 (6), and the project implementer has a duty to deliver the pertinent building to the plaintiff who lawfully acquired the right to use or benefit from the building, except in extenuating circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635 Decided May 27, 2010). Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that, as a commercial lessee who entered into a lease contract with C, the Defendant is liable to compensate for losses, and that it is not possible to recover the time facility and premium, etc., and that it cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim until the deposit is returned.

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the lease contract was made between the defendant and C as of March 31, 2016, with a deposit of KRW 10 million.

However, in this regard, the plaintiff is the date of public announcement of the project implementation authorization (Evidence A2) of the project in this case where the commercial tenant wishes to compensate for business loss.