1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B shall receive KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff and at the same time obtain the payment from the Plaintiff, the real estate listed in the attached Table.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and improvement project association established to remove old and inferior structures in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E Group and newly build multi-family housing and ancillary welfare facilities above, and approved to establish an association on April 27, 2010 by the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. Under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), the Plaintiff obtained authorization from the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”) to implement the housing reconstruction rearrangement project from the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and 271 lots (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”), and received the approval of the management and disposal plan on March 22, 2016, and was publicly notified on March 24,

C. The Defendants are the lessees who leased and possessed each of the corresponding parts listed in the separate sheet No. 1 of the disposition among the real estate located within the instant rearrangement zone.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 2 and 3 respectively, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, when a management and disposal plan is authorized and publicly announced pursuant to Article 49(6) of the Urban Improvement Act, a right holder, such as the owner, superficies, a person having a right to lease on a deposit basis, and a lessee, etc., of the previous land or buildings, shall not use or profit from the previous land or buildings until the date of the public announcement of transfer under Article 54 of the Urban Improvement Act, and the project implementer may use or benefit from the former land or buildings (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). Thus, the Defendants whose use or benefit has been suspended pursuant to the public announcement of the approval of the management and disposal plan in this case are obligated to deliver the said part of the building which

B. The Defendants are not entitled to any compensation in a reconstruction project under Article 49(6) of the Urban Improvement Act.