1. 피고는 원고에게 별지 목록 기재 부동산 2층 중 같은 도면 표시 ㉠, ㉡, ㉢, ㉣, ㉠의 각 점을...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a reconstruction association which obtained authorization from the head of Mapo-gu Office on June 26, 2012 to implement a housing reconstruction improvement project (hereinafter “instant improvement project”) on the scale of 65,148 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and obtained authorization from the head of Mapo-gu on June 3, 2016 on a management and disposal plan regarding the said improvement project, and the same year after obtaining authorization from the head of Mapo-gu Office

6. 9. A management and disposition plan was publicly announced.

B. The real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is located in the above business area, and the Defendant entered into a lease agreement on the instant real estate after March 2, 2007, and is a lessee who occupies and uses the instant real estate.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. When a management and disposal plan is authorized and publicly announced pursuant to Article 49(6) of the Act on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments (hereinafter “Urban and Residential Environments Act”), the owner, superficies, leasee, leasee, etc. of the previous land or buildings may not use or profit from the previous land or buildings until the date of the public announcement of transfer under Article 54 of the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, and the project implementer may use or benefit from the former land or buildings (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010), barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, the lessee, has the duty to deliver the relevant real estate in his/her possession to the Plaintiff, the implementer of the reconstruction project of this case.

B. The Defendant asserted that it cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim for delivery because the lessee did not receive any business compensation for himself.

However, the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas, however, should be solved by private autonomy through the exercise of sale claim, not by public means such as expropriation and use, in cases where the consultation between the housing reconstruction project implementer and the landowner such as land is not constituted.