1. The defendant shall display the annexed drawings to the plaintiff among the first floor of the real estate stated in the annexed list, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 1 respectively.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 24, 2009, the Plaintiff is a cooperative established with authorization for the establishment on July 24, 2009 to implement the A-Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project (hereinafter “instant redevelopment Project”) under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), which covers the area of 16,142 square meters in the Nowon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul. The Defendant is the lessee who leases the portion of 37.63 square meters in the inside portion (hereinafter “the instant building”) connected with each point in sequence, among the real estate listed in the attached Table in the area of the instant redevelopment Project.

B. On February 9, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) obtained authorization to implement the instant redevelopment project on February 9, 2015; (b) obtained authorization to implement the relevant redevelopment project on December 30, 2015; and (c) publicly notified the authorization to implement the relevant redevelopment project on December 30, 2015; and (d) on December 30, 20

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 4 (including tentative number), the purport of whole pleading

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, the Defendant, who is a lessee, is not able to use or profit from the instant building pursuant to the main sentence of Article 49(6) of the Urban Improvement Act by approving and publicly announcing the management and disposal plan of the instant redevelopment project applied by the Plaintiff on December 30, 2015, and thus, barring any special circumstance, is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, who is the project developer.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's summary of the defendant's assertion asserts that the plaintiff's claim of this case is improper for the following reasons.

1) The Defendant, as a lessee of the instant building, is the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Public Works Act”).

(2) D, the owner of the instant building, was not compensated for the director fee under Article 55(2) of the Enforcement Rule.