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

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

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction project association with the size of 52,476 square meters in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as a project implementation district; the Plaintiff obtained authorization for the establishment of a housing reconstruction project on December 21, 2007 from the head of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”); the authorization for the implementation of a project on December 12, 2008; the authorization for the management and disposal plan on July 14, 2015 was granted; and the said management and disposal plan was publicly announced on July 17, 2015.

B. The Defendant is occupying the said real estate as a lessee of the real estate indicated in the attached list within the said project implementation district (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 10, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Article 49(6) of the Act on the Determination of the Grounds for Claim provides that “When a management and disposition plan is authorized and such public notice has been given, the owner of the previous land or building, lessee, etc. shall not use the previous land or building or benefit therefrom by the date of public notice of relocation under Article 54.”

According to the above facts, the defendant whose use or profit has been suspended pursuant to the authorization and public notice of the management and disposal plan under the Urban Improvement Act is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff who acquired the right to use or profit from the real estate of this case

B. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that the owner of the instant real estate has the right to use and benefit from the instant real estate until receiving the settlement money from the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant, the lessee, has no obligation to deliver the instant real estate until the owner of the instant real estate is paid the settlement money from the Plaintiff. However, on the ground that the owner of the real estate who became the cash liquidation agent, did not receive the settlement money, the Defendant