1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

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

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association whose business area covers the area of 23,109.7 square meters in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”). Each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) is located within the above business area.

B. The Plaintiff obtained approval from the head of Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, from the head of the Gu on March 27, 2017, and the plan was publicly notified on the same day.

C. The defendant is the owner of each real estate of this case who occupies and uses it.

The Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication of expropriation with the competent regional Land Tribunal of Incheon Metropolitan City, in order to not reach an agreement on the acquisition of each of the instant real estate with the Defendant, and the said Land Tribunal decided on February 23, 2018 on the commencement date of expropriation against the Defendant on April 19, 2018.

E. On April 12, 2018, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 1,068,692,390 for each of the compensation for losses under the above confinement ruling by the Incheon District Court Decision No. 3691, supra, with the deposited person as the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including each number in the case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. When the public notice of approval of a management and disposal plan prescribed in Article 49(3) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas (amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017; hereinafter the same) regarding the cause of a claim is given, the use and profit-making of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, and lessee of the previous land or building, shall be suspended pursuant to Article 49(6) of the same Act, and the project implementer shall be able to use and profit from the former land or building (Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). According to the above findings, the Plaintiff is the project implementer for whom the public notice of approval of the management and disposal plan has been issued pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Urban Improvement Act, and the Defendant