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 an association established for a housing redevelopment improvement project with the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government one of 105,629 square meters as a project implementation district, and obtained authorization for the establishment of the association from the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on June 25, 2009.

On October 23, 2012, the Plaintiff received project implementation authorization from the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office on February 6, 2014, obtained authorization for the project implementation change plan (hereinafter “project implementation change plan of this case”), and obtained authorization for the management and disposition plan (hereinafter “instant management and disposition plan”) under Article 49(2) of the Urban Improvement Act (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), and the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly announced the above management and disposition plan on the same day.

B. The Defendant occupied and used the above real estate as the owner of the real estate listed in the attached list located in the project implementation district.

[Reasons for Recognition] Items A through 5, 7 through 9 (including each number), Gap evidence 6-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. When a public notice of a management and disposal plan under Article 49(3) of the Act on the Determination of Grounds for Claim is given, the use and profit-making of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, leasee, etc. of the previous land or buildings shall be suspended pursuant to Article 49(6) of the same Act, and the project implementer may use and profit from the former land or buildings (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da22094, Dec. 22, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Although the plaintiff did not notify the general meeting of the union members of the claim that the management and disposition plan invalid and the plaintiff sent the public notice of the application for parcelling-out and the notice of the application for parcelling-out, it did not present the management and disposition plan proposal to