1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B delivers one building listed in the annexed real estate list;

B. Defendant C shall provide attached real estate.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and maintenance project association under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) that promotes a reconstruction project for multi-family housing and ancillary facilities on a site of 399,741 square meters in Gangnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City D Day, and the Defendants are the lessees of each real estate listed in paragraph (1) of this Article (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. The Plaintiff received the authorization from the head of Gangnam-gu Office to establish an association on October 14, 2003, the authorization to implement the project on April 28, 2016, and the authorization to implement the management and disposal plan on April 6, 2018, respectively, and the head of Gangnam-gu notified the head of the management and disposal plan on April 13, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Gap evidence 6-2, 4, Gap evidence 7, Gap evidence 8-1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Article 81(1) of the Urban Improvement Act provides that “If a right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leaseer, etc. of the previous land or building, is publicly notified of an approval plan for the management and disposal of the land pursuant to Article 78(4), the former land or building shall not be used or profit from it until the date the transfer is publicly notified pursuant to Article 86.” Thus, the Defendants, the lessee of the instant real estate, cannot use or profit from each of the instant real estate, and the Plaintiff, the project developer

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to deliver each of the instant real estate possessed by them to the Plaintiff.

B. As to this, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s union members were in violation of Articles 43 and 81 of the Urban Improvement Act and suffered from mental, physical, and monetary suffering, and thus, they cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.