1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the part of the first floor among the buildings listed in the attached list.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 27, 2011, the Plaintiff obtained authorization for the establishment of a reconstruction project for the Seoul Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin-gu Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant project”). On August 3, 201, the Plaintiff is a reconstruction project association which completed the registration of establishment on August 3, 201, and the instant management and disposal plan was authorized and announced as of October 18,

B. The Defendant is a tenant who occupies a part of the first floor among the buildings indicated in the attached list located in the instant project zone (hereinafter “the first floor of the instant building”).

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

2. Determination-based, Article 81(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents provides that "the right holder, etc. of the previous land or building may not use or profit from the previous land or building until the date when the management and disposal plan under Article 78(4) is publicly announced." According to the above facts, the above facts are as follows: (a) the public notice of the management and disposal plan was given as of October 18, 2017 in the business area including the building in this case; (b) therefore, the defendant cannot use or profit from the first floor of the building in this case; and therefore, (c) the plaintiff is obligated to deliver the first floor in this case to the

The defendant asserts that there is no obligation to deliver it without compensation for preserving the livelihood, but merely because it is alleged by the defendant, the plaintiff's request for extradition cannot be refused.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.