1. The Defendants deliver to the Plaintiff the real estate indicated in the attached real estate indication.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment project partnership with the approval of establishment on April 10, 2008, whose business area covers 39,128 square meters of G G G in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

As the owner of the real estate indicated in the attached real estate indication (hereinafter “instant real estate”) within the Plaintiff’s project zone, the Defendant B Religious Organization C church (hereinafter “Defendant church”) became subject to cash settlement due to the failure to apply for parcelling-out to the Plaintiff.

The remaining Defendants occupy the real estate of this case.

B. On October 8, 2013, the Plaintiff received an approval for the management and disposal plan under Article 49(2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) from the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and was publicly notified on October 17, 2013 by the approval for the management and disposal plan.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 4, and 6 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same)'s statements, 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 is entitled to use and profit-making (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da22094, Dec. 22, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010); barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant real estate located in the business area to the Plaintiff who acquired the right

3. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. 1 The Defendants, in accordance with Article 89(1) of the Land Compensation Act, applied mutatis mutandis by Article 40(1) of the Urban Improvement Act, have failed or completed the obligations within the fixed period of time by the person who is obliged to perform the obligations under this Act or any disposition under this Act.