1. The defendant shall deliver the building as stated in the attached Form to the plaintiff.

2. Of the litigation costs, 40% is the Plaintiff, and 60% is the Defendant.

Facts of recognition

The plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and maintenance project partnership established to improve residential environments in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 89,853 square meters in which infrastructure for rearrangement is inferior and the old and inferior buildings are concentrated pursuant to Article 13 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the "Urban Improvement Act"), and the defendant is the owner and occupant of the building in the attached Form (hereinafter referred to as the "building in this case") and

The Plaintiff obtained authorization from the head of Seongbuk-gu Office to establish an association on April 21, 2009, and received authorization for project implementation on April 4, 2013, and received authorization for project implementation on December 22, 2014, and publicly notified the approval for the management and disposal plan on December 26, 2014.

On June 26, 2015, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal rendered a ruling to expropriate the instant building and its site for the said rearrangement project, and to set the compensation to the Defendant at KRW 349,640,920, in accordance with the Plaintiff’s application for adjudication of expropriation.

On August 10, 2015, prior to the date of commencement of expropriation prescribed by the above ruling (the date of August 14, 2015), the Plaintiff deposited the above compensation with the Defendant as the deposited person.

【In the absence of dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including a provisional number), the purport of the entire pleadings, and Article 49(6) and (3) of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents to Deliver the whole purport of the pleadings, the use and profit-making of the previous owner, lessee, etc. of the subject matter shall be suspended, and the project implementer may take over the subject matter and take profits therefrom to start the construction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da28394, Nov. 24, 201). According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff.

The defendant's assertion is ① obtained a written consent omitting the outline of the design of the building newly built by the owner of the land, etc. and the rough cost required for the removal of the building and the construction of the new building, and then submitted the modified written consent by arbitrarily stating the above details when applying for the authorization.