1. The defendant is paid KRW 20 million from the plaintiff, and at the same time, the floor of the building stated in the attached list to the plaintiff.

1. Determination on both arguments

A. Under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the “Urban Improvement Act”), the Plaintiff, who is a project executor under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the “Urban Improvement Act”), obtained authorization from the head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on January 22, 2015, and then, at that time, the details of such authorization are publicly notified (Seoul Metropolitan Government Public Notice C) and the fact that the Defendant occupies the relevant building portion as a lessee of the building (282.7 square meters among the ground floors) as stipulated in paragraph (1) of the main text, may be recognized by adding

According to these facts, barring any special circumstance, the defendant, whose use or profit-making has been suspended pursuant to the above notice of approval of the management and disposal plan, is obligated to deliver to the project implementer the part of the building lawfully acquired by the defendant to the plaintiff who has acquired the right to use or profit

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da62561, Jul. 24, 2014). (B)

On this issue, the defendant asserts as follows.

(1) It is unlawful for the Plaintiff to request the issuance of the instant building against the Defendant, etc. without having gone through the conference procedure of the Urban Dispute Mediation Committee, as well as not having gone through a consultation five times or more pursuant to the “Operation Plan of the Prior Consultative Body” submitted by the Plaintiff to the head of Jung

(2) The Plaintiff is obligated to establish a “resident and relocation measures” with respect to the Plaintiff, so the Defendant, etc. cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim in this case unless the payment of business loss compensation or relocation compensation, etc. under the analogical application of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Public Works Act”) is carried out at least simultaneously.

(3) The Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim before receiving a refund of deposit for lease from the Plaintiff.

(c).