1. The Defendants deliver to the Plaintiff the buildings listed in the attached list.

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

3.

1. Determination on both arguments

A. The Plaintiff, a project implementer under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the “Urban Improvement Act”), obtained authorization of the management and disposal plan from the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on July 14, 2015. At that time, the details of such authorization are publicly notified (D public notification of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government) and the Defendants are currently occupying a building as a lessee of the building as stipulated in paragraph (1) of the main text, or can be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to each of the items of subparagraphs A and 10 (including the provisional number).

According to these facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants whose use or profit has been suspended as a lessee pursuant to the above notice of approval of the management and disposal plan are obligated to deliver the said building possessed by the Defendants to the Plaintiff who lawfully acquired the right to use or profit from the whole building as a project implementer.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da62561, Jul. 24, 2014). (B)

In this regard, the defendants argued that "the liquidation money to be paid by the plaintiff to the landlord of the defendant is not yet finalized, and there is no right to claim the plaintiff to deliver the real estate of this case to the defendants, such as ownership (the case clearly states that the right to use and benefit from real estate within the project district of the reconstruction association in the reconstruction project takes place from the time when the owner of the land, that is, the right to use and benefit from the real estate, is transferred from the person subject to the reconstruction project, who does not consent to the rebuilding resolution). Therefore, the plaintiff is obvious that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim the transfer of the real estate of this case from the defendants because it is apparent that he did not obtain the right to use and benefit from the transfer of