The defendant shall deliver the building indicated in the attached Form to the plaintiff.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Paragraph 1 shall be provisionally executed.

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff is a project implementer who performs a rearrangement project (redevelopment) in an improvement zone of the area of the 62,035 square meters of 405 square meters and Jeonju-si, Jeonju-si, and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the Defendant currently occupies a building in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant building”) in the above improvement zone.

On December 5, 2017, the Jeonju Mayor approved the management and disposal plan concerning the instant rearrangement project of the Plaintiff and publicly announced it in the Official Gazette.

The Plaintiff consulted with the Defendant on the compensation for the building owned by it, but did not reach an agreement, filed an application for adjudication with the Governor of Jeollabuk-do Regional Land Tribunal. On January 31, 2019, the said Expropriation Committee rendered an adjudication on the compensation for the building, etc. at KRW 41,256,750, and the date of commencement of expropriation at March 26, 2019.

(A) No. 3-1, 2, and 3). On March 21, 2019, the Plaintiff deposited the above compensation for losses to the Defendant under the Jeonju District Court No. 971, 2019.

(A) The Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 81(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

The defendant asserts that there is no obligation to deliver a building because there was no reasonable compensation.

However, in light of the purport of Article 65(1) of the Urban Improvement Act and Article 88 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Expropriation Act”), which provides that the expropriation of land shall not be suspended due to an objection to the expropriation ruling, it is reasonable to view that the compensation for losses under Article 81(1)2 of the Urban Improvement Act has been completed even if an objection to the expropriation ruling is filed when all compensation determined by the expropriation ruling is paid.

The defendant asserts that there is no obligation to deliver buildings until resettlement funds, residential relocation expenses, and directors' expenses are paid.

However, whether the defendant is subject to the payment of resettlement funds, etc. as stipulated in Article 65(1) of the Urban Improvement Act and Article 78 of the Land Expropriation Act.