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. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleading in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 7 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including paper numbers):

The plaintiff is a housing redevelopment project partnership that has obtained approval for the establishment of the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government Group C Project District under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as

B. The head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government approved the management and disposal plan on February 25, 2016 on the housing redevelopment improvement project implemented by the Plaintiff, and announced it around that time.

C. The Defendant consented to the establishment of an association as the owner of the building listed in the attached list in the Plaintiff’s project implementation district (hereinafter “instant building”), and became a member of the Plaintiff by filing an application for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out determined by the Plaintiff (from May 26, 2015 to July 14, 2015).

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. According to the provisions of Article 49(6) of the Act on the Determination of the Plaintiff’s Grounds for Claim, when a management and disposal plan is authorized and the public notice is made, the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, leasee, etc. of the previous land or structure, shall not use or profit from the previous land or structure until the date of public notice of relocation under Article 54 of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, and the project implementer shall be entitled to use or profit from the previous land or structure. Therefore, the Defendant whose use or profit has been suspended as the owner under the public notice

B. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion (1) The Defendant did not receive specific information on redevelopment projects from the Plaintiff and withdrawn the application for parcelling-out from the Plaintiff around September 26, 2016 and concluded the contract for parcelling-out.