1. The defendant shall order the plaintiff to point out 1, 2, 5, 6, and 1 of the attached drawings among the 1st floor of the real estate listed in the attached list.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the grounds for the claim, the Plaintiff is a cooperative established to implement a housing redevelopment improvement project under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) in Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, the authorization for the establishment of the association on November 16, 2007, and the authorization for the implementation of the project on January 12, 2017, respectively. Upon receipt of the management and disposal plan on July 6, 2018, the Defendant occupied and used the building as stated in paragraph (1) of the main text of the above project (hereinafter “instant building”), and the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that on July 30, 2020 with the judgment of the Seoul Local Land Tribunal, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 3,80,000 as the depositee and deposited KRW 3,80,000 in Seoul Eastdong District Court.

On the other hand, Article 81 (1) of the Urban Improvement Act provides that a right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leaseer, etc. of the previous land or building, shall not use the previous land or building or benefit therefrom by the date of the public announcement of transfer under Article 86, if the public announcement of the management and disposal plan is made under Article 78 (4).

According to the above facts, the defendant has a duty to deliver the above building to the plaintiff, since he lost the right to use and benefit from the building of this case according to the plaintiff's notice of management and disposal plan.

2. The defendant's assertion that the defendant paid 50 million won as premium when leasing the building of this case. In light of these circumstances, the plaintiff's claim is unreasonable since the amount of business compensation against the defendant is underfinite, but the plaintiff's claim is argued to the purport that the housing redevelopment project implementer deposited the compensation for losses as prescribed by the ruling of expropriation by the competent Land Tribunal. Thus, the defendant's administrative litigation, etc.