1. The defendant shall leave from the first floor of the building indicated in the attached list.

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

3...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project partnership established with authorization from the head of the office of the Busan Metropolitan City on October 16, 2015 to implement a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”) covering the area of 24.793 square meters of Busan Northern-gu Seoul Northern-gu, which is located in the area of the instant rearrangement project. The Defendant owned a building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) and the site thereof within the instant rearrangement project zone and operated a middle point as “E” among the tenants who leased the part of the first floor of the instant building to the non-party D who completed the application for parcelling-out.

B. On February 2, 2018, the Plaintiff: (a) held a general meeting to decide on a management and disposition plan; and (b) applied for the approval plan; and (c) on February 7, 2018, the said approval was publicly notified by the head of the North Korean government.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry of Gap 1 through 4, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. When the public notice of the approval plan for the management and disposal plan under Article 49(3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents is given to determine the cause of the claim, the use and profit-making by the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, leasee, etc. of the previous land or building is suspended pursuant to Article 49(6) of the same Act, and the project implementer is entitled to use and profit-making therefrom (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 201

B. The Defendant’s assertion is alleged to the effect that the Defendant cannot leave before receiving compensation for relocation expenses, etc. from the Plaintiff or D, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant is eligible to receive compensation under the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, such as relocation expenses, etc., and thus, the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted

3. Therefore, we decide to accept the Plaintiff’s claim of this case for reasons.