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 a housing reconstruction and improvement project association established on August 8, 2008 by the head of Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) for the purpose of promoting a housing reconstruction project in the area of 43,303 square meters in Seoul Special Metropolitan City

B. The Plaintiff obtained the project implementation authorization from the head of Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City on August 19, 201, and the management and disposal plan authorization on December 201, and publicly notified on January 3, 2013, and publicly notified on July 2015.

C. The Defendant leased and occupied the real estate indicated in the attached list in the above business zone.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 6 evidence (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

(a) When a management and disposal plan is authorized and publicly announced pursuant to Article 49 (6) of the Act on the Determination of Grounds for Claims, a right holder, such as the owner, superficies, a person having a right to lease, a lessee, etc. of the previous land or buildings shall not use or profit from the previous land or buildings until the date of public announcement of relocation under Article 54 of the Act

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver to the plaintiff as the implementer of the reconstruction project the real estate listed in the attached Table.

B. The defendant's assertion is asserted to the purport that since the defendant could not speak from the plaintiff after the approval of the management and disposition plan, he could not respond to the plaintiff's claim before receiving compensation.

However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff has the obligation to compensate for damages, and there is no other evidence to recognize this, so the defendant's argument is without merit

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.