In order of the defendant to the plaintiff, each point is indicated in the annexed drawings 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the strata of the buildings listed in the annexed sheet.

1. Comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of arguments in Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers) and Eul evidence Nos. 1, the plaintiff is an association established to implement a housing redevelopment improvement project under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter "Urban Improvement Act"), the plaintiff is authorized to establish the association on November 16, 2007 from the head of Seongdong-gu, the authorization for the establishment of the association on January 16, 2007, and the authorization for the implementation of the project on January 12, 2017, respectively, and announced it around that time with the authorization for the management and disposal plan issued on July 6, 2018; the defendant is entitled to five million won for lease, two million won for rent, and three million won for lease, and the period of November 26, 2009, and deposit money with the Seoul district court up to six million won for the lease and transfer of the movable property.

On the other hand, Article 81 (1) of the Urban Improvement Act provides that a right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leaseer, etc. of the previous land or building, shall not use the previous land or building or benefit therefrom by the date of the public announcement of transfer under Article 86, if the public announcement of the management and disposal plan is made under Article 78 (4).

According to the above facts, the defendant has a duty to deliver the above building to the plaintiff, since he lost the right to use and benefit from the building of this case according to the plaintiff's notice of management and disposal plan.

2. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim before receiving the cost of housing relocation. However, there is no proof as to the Defendant’s entitlement to the cost of housing relocation. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is difficult to accept.

3. The plaintiff's claim is justified.