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 redevelopment and rearrangement project association established to implement a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”) with a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project area of 33,739 square meters in Gu-si, Gu-si.

B. On August 10, 2007, the Plaintiff obtained authorization to establish a management and disposal plan that classified the Defendant as a person subject to cash settlement (hereinafter “instant management and disposal plan”) from the Guri market, and decided at the general meeting on June 30, 2015, and the Guri market approved and publicly announced the management and disposal plan on November 3, 2015.

C. The Defendant occupies the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant possession”). D.

On February 3, 2016, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 369,158,100 as compensation for land and goods pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's statements in Gap's evidence 1 to 5, 7 and 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case filed against the defendant who is disqualified for the plaintiff in relation to the rearrangement project of this case against the defendant who is not qualified for the plaintiff is unlawful as a lawsuit against the non-qualified person. However, the standing in the performance lawsuit is the plaintiff to the person who asserts that the right to demand performance, which is the subject matter of lawsuit, is qualified for the plaintiff, and the person who is alleged by the plaintiff as the person liable for performance, has the standing for the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da44387, Oct. 7, 2005; 96Da13927, Sept. 18, 1998). The defendant's defense is groundless

B. The Defendant asserted that the instant disposition to authorize the instant management and disposal plan should be revoked, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful, but it did not become final and conclusive as to whether the instant management and disposal plan is invalid, and even if so, it is related to the judgment on the merits, and the requirements for litigation are satisfied.