1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the building indicated in the attached list.

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

3...

Facts of recognition

The plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and maintenance project association established to improve residential environment in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government 89,853 square meters where infrastructure for rearrangement is inferior and worn-out 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 possessor of the building listed in the attached Table (hereinafter referred to as the "building in this case") and the site owner and possessor of the building in this case, and is

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.

Article 10 (1) 7 of the articles of association of the Plaintiff Union provides that "members shall have the following rights and obligations: 7. The obligation to remove and move according to a business action plan."

【In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1 through 5 (including additional numbers), and the defendant’s entire purport of the pleading, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff as a member of the association, as stipulated in the articles of association.

As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant’s invalidity of authorization to establish an association is as follows: (a) after having obtained written consent omitted from the owner of land, etc. the outline of the construction to be newly built by the Plaintiff, and the outline of the construction required for the removal and construction of the buildings; and (b) upon applying for authorization, the Plaintiff submitted written consent with arbitrarily stated the above contents; (c) without using the written consent form prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, used the written consent specifying the cost-bearing; (d) without obtaining consent from the owner of the land, etc., including the landowner; and (e) excluding the