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

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

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association whose project implementation district covers 63,231 square meters in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government. The Plaintiff received authorization for the implementation of the project on September 26, 2013 from the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the approval for the management and disposal plan on May 7, 2015, respectively. The head of Eunpyeong-gu publicly notified the details of the authorization for the management

The defendant owned the building indicated in the order within the redevelopment project zone of the plaintiff and became eligible for cash settlement because he did not apply for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out.

B. Around August 2015, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal rendered a ruling of expropriation on July 24, 2015, the date of commencement of expropriation on September 11, 2015, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 192,962,210 to the Defendant.

In addition, the Plaintiff paid KRW 13,637,540 to the Defendant for settlement funds, housing relocation expenses, and movable property transfer expenses, etc.

Grounds for Recognition: Each entry, and the purport of the whole pleadings, as described in Gap 1, Gap 2-1, 2, Gap 3, Gap 5-1, Gap 6-1, 2, 3, and Gap 10

2. When the approval of a management and disposal plan prescribed in Article 49 (3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents is publicly announced, use or profit-making of the owners, etc. of the previous land or buildings shall be suspended pursuant to paragraph (6) of the same Article, and the project implementer

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building owned by the business operator to the plaintiff.

Since the plaintiff acquired the right of administrative vicarious execution under public law, the defendant asserts that there is no right to request the civil delivery or abuse of rights, but the duty of delivery is only a need for the direct exercise of power and cannot be deemed as a substitute act, and therefore, the above assertion based on this premise is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is accepted as reasonable.