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

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

3.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 8, 2014, the president of Mapo-gu authorized the Plaintiff’s management and disposal plan established for the Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project, and announced it on March 12, 2015.

B. The Defendant occupies the building indicated in the attached list of real estate in the rearrangement zone in which the Plaintiff implements the project as a lessee.

[Evidence Evidence: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. According to the above findings of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is entitled to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents.

() As a project implementer under Article 48-2 (1) of the Act, an existing building in the project site shall be removed in accordance with the management and disposal plan authorized by the project implementer, and the defendant is unable to use or profit from the previous building pursuant to Article 49 (6), and the project implementer has a duty to deliver the pertinent building to the plaintiff who lawfully acquired the right to use or benefit from the building, except in extenuating circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635 Decided May 27, 2010). The Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the owner of the building C on September 3, 2014, with a deposit of KRW 3 million. However, on January 17, 2012, the Defendant: (a) paid KRW 4 million to E who had opened door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door, and (b) applied to the lawsuit of this case without legitimate consultation, with the owner of the business from December 1, 2014 to the change of the type of business; (c) as long as the previous lessee succeeded to the rights of the retailer on January 15, 2015.

In terms of relevant regulations, the proviso of Article 49 (6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Public Works is to seek the delivery of the building to the right holder of the previous building.