1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the building indicated 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 consolidation project association that completed the registration of incorporation on March 20, 2012 in order to implement a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”) with land of Bupyeong-gu Incheon and 343 as a project implementation district pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

B. On December 29, 2014, the Plaintiff obtained authorization to implement the instant improvement project from the head of Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Bupyeong-gu.

The head of Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City publicly announced the project implementation authorization at that time.

C. On November 22, 2016, the head of Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City authorizing and publicly notifying a management and disposal plan concerning the instant rearrangement project. D.

The defendant has been operating a restaurant while occupying the buildings listed in the attached list in the instant improvement project zone (hereinafter referred to as the "building of this case").

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The former Urban Improvement Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017; Act No. 14567, Feb. 9, 2018; Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017) shall apply at the time of project implementation authorization, etc. for the cause of the claim in this case. However, according to Article 25 of the Addenda of the amended Urban Improvement Act (Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017), the instant project implementation authorization, etc. is deemed to have been conducted under the amended Act, and thus, the amended Act shall apply.

According to the above, when a management and disposition plan is authorized and publicly announced, a right holder, such as the owner of the previous land or structure, can not use or profit from the previous land or structure until the date of public announcement of transfer under Article 86 of the same Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da22094, Dec. 22, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). According to the above facts recognized, the management and disposition plan of this case is authorized and authorized.