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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and maintenance project association whose business area covers 73,310 square meters in Gyeyang-gu Incheon Metropolitan City pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), and real estate listed in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is located within the above business area.

B. The Plaintiff obtained authorization from the head of Gyeyang-gu Incheon Metropolitan City on the management and disposal plan on July 24, 2017, and was publicly notified on July 28, 2017.

C. The Defendant, as the owner of the instant real estate, occupies and uses the instant real estate.

The Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication of expropriation with the competent Regional Land Tribunal of Incheon Metropolitan City, in order to not reach an agreement on the acquisition of the instant real estate with the Defendant, and the said Land Tribunal decided on November 29, 2017 on the commencement date of expropriation against the Defendant on January 23, 2018.

E. On January 17, 2018, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 65,240,540 as the Defendant of the deposited person and deposited KRW 65,240,540 as compensation under the above confinement ruling by the Incheon District Court Decision No. 658 in 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number in the case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. When the public notice of approval of a management and disposal plan prescribed in Article 49(3) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas (amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017; hereinafter the same) regarding the cause of a claim is given, the use and profit-making of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, and lessee of the previous land or building, shall be suspended pursuant to Article 49(6) of the same Act, and the project implementer shall be able to use and profit from the former land or building (Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). According to the above findings, the Plaintiff is the project implementer for whom the public notice of approval of the management and disposal plan was issued pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Urban Improvement Act, and the Defendant is the owner