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

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

3.Paragraph 1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a cooperative that completed the registration of incorporation on March 20, 2012 with the authorization of establishment on March 14, 2012, by setting the area of 76,157.3 square meters in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City as a business area (hereinafter “instant business area”) pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

B. On November 22, 2016, the head of Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City authorizing the management and disposal plan concerning the instant improvement project, and publicly announced it on the same day.

C. The Defendant owned and possessed the building attached to the instant project zone (hereinafter “instant building”), and became eligible for cash settlement due to the failure to file an application for parcelling-out during the period of application for parcelling-out.

The plaintiff and the defendant did not reach an agreement on the compensation for losses, but the plaintiff applied for the adjudication of expropriation to the Land Tribunal of Incheon Metropolitan City.

On July 11, 2018, the said commission rendered each expropriation ruling on the instant building and obstacles (hereinafter “instant expropriation ruling”) on November 16, 2018 with respect to the site of the instant building.

On September 4, 2018 and December 26, 2018, the Plaintiff deposited the full amount of the compensation according to the instant adjudication on expropriation with the Defendant as the principal deposit.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2-7, 3, 4, 5-1, 7, 8, 9-4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the main sentence of Article 81(1) of the Act on the Determination of Grounds for Claim, when a management and disposal plan is authorized and publicly notified, profit-making by the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leaseer, etc. of the previous land or building, shall be suspended, and the project implementer may use and benefit from the former land or building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff is the project implementer who received the public notice