1. The Defendant shall deliver to the Plaintiff one story of 59.58 square meters among the real estate listed in the attached list.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association established to implement a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”) with the implementation area of 43,329 square meters in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. The Plaintiff was authorized to establish an association on September 18, 2008 by the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; the authorization to implement the project on September 5, 2013; and the authorization to implement the management and disposal plan on November 13, 2014; and the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government announced the above management and disposal plan on November 13, 2014.

C. The real estate indicated in the attached list is located within the implementation zone of the instant rearrangement project, and the Defendant occupies 59.58 square meters of the first floor among the real estate listed in the attached list.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence No. 4-4, Gap evidence No. 5-7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. When the management and disposal plan under Article 49(3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) is publicly notified, the use and profit-making by the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, lessee, etc. of the previous land or buildings shall be suspended, and the project implementer may use and profit from the former land or buildings (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da22094, Dec. 22, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). As to the instant case, the health zone and the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly notified the management and disposal plan concerning the instant rearrangement project on Nov. 13, 2014. Accordingly, the Defendant, the occupant of the real estate located in the zone where the rearrangement project in this case is implemented, cannot be used and profit-making pursuant to the main sentence of Article 49(6) of the Urban Improvement Act.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.