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. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. In fact, the Plaintiff is the Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project Association established by the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government for the purpose of implementing the Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project for the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Group C.

On November 27, 2014, the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office approved and publicly announced a management and disposal plan for the plaintiff's housing redevelopment improvement project.

The defendant is the owner of a building listed in the attached list in the improvement project zone (hereinafter referred to as the "building of this case") and is subject to cash settlement.

The Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Expropriation Committee, as it did not reach an agreement on compensation for losses with the Defendant.

On April 24, 2015, on June 12, 2015, the Expropriation Committee ruled that the Defendant’s instant building and its site shall be KRW 284 million in compensation for losses, with the commencement date of expropriation as of June 12, 2015.

On May 21, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited the compensation on the ground that the Defendant refused to receive the compensation determined by the ruling.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. When a public notice of the management and disposal plan stipulated in Article 49(3) of the Act is given, the use and profit-making of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, leasee, etc., of the previous land or buildings shall be suspended pursuant to Article 49(6) of the same Act, and the project implementer may use and profit from the former land or buildings (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da22094, Dec. 22, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to deliver the building in this case to the Plaintiff

2. The defendant's assertion argues that the plaintiff has the obligation to pay the resettlement money, relocation expenses, and directors' expenses to the defendant, and that the above obligation to pay is a preferential performance relationship with the defendant's obligation to deliver.