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. On September 9, 2008, the Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association which has obtained an authorization for establishment under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) from the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as a project implementation district with the size of 17,850 square meters, and the Defendant is the owner of the building described in paragraph (1) of this Article located within the project implementation district

B. The head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly notified the Plaintiff’s project implementation authorization on March 20, 2014; publicly notified the project implementation authorization on October 13, 2015; and on March 31, 2016, approved the management and disposition plan (hereinafter “the instant management and disposition plan”); and publicly notified the same on the same day.

C. On September 5, 2018, the Plaintiff deposited the compensation for losses and additional charges for delay as stipulated in the above expropriation ruling by the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City (the date of commencement of expropriation: September 14, 2018) on July 27, 2018, with the Defendant as a depositee, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. When a public notice of a management and disposal plan under Article 49(3) of the Act on the Determination of Grounds for Claim is given, the use and profit-making of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, leasee, etc., of the previous land or buildings shall be suspended pursuant to Article 49(6) of the same Act, 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). Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the building that acquired the right to use and profit in accordance with

3. The defendant's assertion and judgment alleged that the plaintiff did not pay part of the interest in arrears, and that the obligation to pay it should be paid prior to or simultaneously with the delivery of the part in possession, as seen above.