1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 list.

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

3...

1. Basic facts

가. 원고는 서울 관악구 C 일대 80,836m ^{2}를 사업시행구역으로 하여 설립된 주택재개발정비사업조합으로, 2009. 11. 12. 서울 관악구청장으로부터 사업시행인가를, 2014. 5. 22. 사업시행변경인가를 각 받고, 2015. 2. 17. 도시 및 주거환경정비법(이하 ‘도시정비법’이라 한다) 제49조 제2항에 의하여 관리처분계획을 인가받았으며, 서울 관악구청장은 같은 날 도시정비법 제49조 제3항에 의하여 관리처분계획을 고시하였다.

B. The Defendant is a person subject to cash liquidation who owns real estate listed in the attached Table 1 list located within the said rearrangement project implementation zone (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and did not apply for an application for parcelling-out.

C. On January 29, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication of expropriation with the Defendant on the compensation of the instant real estate with the competent local Land Expropriation Committee, and the said Committee deposited the full amount of compensation for losses determined in the instant adjudication of expropriation on March 9, 2016 for the Defendant on the following grounds: (a) on January 29, 2016, the date of commencement of expropriation on the real estate located in the enforcement zone including the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant adjudication of expropriation”); and (b) on March 9, 2016, the Plaintiff deposited the full amount of compensation

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 4, 9 through 13 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. According to Article 49(6) of the Urban Improvement Act, when the authorization of a management and disposal plan is publicly announced, a right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, etc. of the previous land or structure, may not use or benefit from the previous land or structure, and the project implementer may use or benefit from the former land or structure.

According to the above basic facts, the notice of the approval of the management and disposal plan was given, and the plaintiff deposited the defendant as the principal deposit and deposited the full amount of compensation for losses under the ruling of acceptance of this case.