1. The defendant shall deliver three floors among the buildings listed in the attached list to the plaintiff.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

3...

1. Basic facts

A. On June 27, 2014, the Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association that implements a housing redevelopment project in the area of 87,883.6m2 of the Yongsan-si, Yongsan-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Seoul Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City”) upon authorization to implement the project. The Plaintiff received the approval of the management and disposal plan from the original market on June 19, 2015, and the Changwon Special Metropolitan City announced the management and disposal plan on June 19,

B. The defendant is the owner of the building indicated in the attached list included in the improvement zone of the above project, who has not filed an application for parcelling-out, and is in possession of the three floors of the above building until now.

C. On July 26, 2016, Gyeongnam-do Regional Land Expropriation Committee decided to expropriate the above building and its site as 651,615,700 won for compensation, and as of September 19, 2016 for the date of expropriation. The Plaintiff deposited the full amount of the above compensation to the Defendant on September 6, 2016.

2. The main text of Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents provides that “When the authorization of a management and disposal plan is publicly announced, any right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, etc. of the previous land or structure, shall not use or profit from the previous land or structure by the date of the public announcement of transfer under Article 54.” Thus, when the public announcement of a management and disposal plan is made, use or profit from the former land or structure owner, etc. shall be suspended, and the project implementer may use or benefit from the former land or structure (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). Therefore, the defendant who lost the right to benefit pursuant to the public announcement of the management and disposal plan as a project implementer, is obligated to deliver the

3. The defendant's assertion is arguing that the defendant is not yet able to respond to the plaintiff's claim due to the lack of compensation for loss, but the plaintiff deposited the full amount of compensation following the adjudication of expropriation.