1. The defendant is paid KRW 10,000,000 from the plaintiff, and at the same time, the building listed in the attached list is added to the plaintiff.

The fact that the Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction project partnership with the Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Mapo-gu Project District, the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government authorizing the management and disposal plan on June 3, 2016 for the housing reconstruction project implemented by the Plaintiff on June 9, 2016, and announced it on June 9, 2016. The Defendant leased and occupied the buildings listed in the attached Table in the said project district from D in KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 350,000, and the fact that the said building is located in the said project district is not disputed between the parties, or recognized by comprehensively

Comprehensively taking account of the above facts, pursuant to Articles 48-2(1), 49(6), and 44(1) and (2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the building listed in the attached list to the Plaintiff at the same time as the Plaintiff received deposit KRW 10,000 from the Plaintiff.

Although the defendant claims that moving expenses and equipment should be paid, unlike residential environment improvement projects and housing redevelopment projects, the project implementer cannot claim moving expenses, etc. from the housing reconstruction project without any premise for the expropriation or use under the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, and there is no evidence that the defendant has the right to request the lessor to return the facility expenses. Therefore, the above argument