1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate stated in the attached Form.

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

3.Paragraph 1.

Facts of recognition

On April 27, 2010, the Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association with the size of 107,165.5 square meters in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as a project implementation district, which has obtained authorization from the head of Seongbuk-gu Office to establish an association under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents. The Defendant is the owner and occupant of the attached real estate located in the project implementation district

The head of Seongbuk-gu shall authorize the Plaintiff to implement the project on November 26, 2013, and publicly notify the project on December 3, 2013, and shall approve the management and disposal plan on March 18, 2016 and publicly notify it on March 24, 2016.

On October 28, 2016, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal rendered a ruling to expropriate the instant building and attached facilities for the said rearrangement project.

On December 14, 2016, the date prior to the commencement date of expropriation, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 27,486,100 of the compensation determined by the above adjudication with the Defendant as the depositee, and on December 16, 2016, deposited KRW 15,823,290 of the compensation for relocation and resettlement.

【Non-contentious facts, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, and 10 (including provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings, but the above fact that the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the building of this case by depositing the compensation for expropriation. Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff.

The defendant asserts that since the project implementation authorization and the management and disposal plan are invalid due to many defects in the resolution of the general meeting due to the lack of quorum at the general meeting of the project implementation planning, and the procedure for notifying the general meeting of the management and disposal plan is unlawful, the adjudication on expropriation and deposit for the invalid rearrangement project shall

The records of Nos. 1, 5, and 8 (including paper numbers) alone are insufficient to admit the above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, in full view of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 6 (including paper numbers), the defendant is the head of Seongbuk-gu.