1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate indicated on the attached real estate.

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

The facts that the Plaintiff (the authorization of establishment on September 4, 2008) was approved by the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul on September 29, 2017 by the head of Dongdaemun-gu and publicly notified on October 12, 2017 by the management and disposal plan on September 29, 2017, which is the implementer of housing redevelopment improvement project of 53,371 square meters of the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, including real estate mentioned in paragraph (1) of this Article, and the plan was publicly notified on October 12, 2017 does not conflict between the parties. If the management and disposal plan prescribed in the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents is publicly notified, the use and profit of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leaseer, etc. of the previous land or building shall be suspended, and the project implementer may use and benefit from it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

In response, the defendant argued to the effect that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's request for extradition because he did not receive compensation from the plaintiff for the defendant's business place (D). However, in light of the purport of the whole argument in Gap's evidence No. 6, the plaintiff was rendered a ruling of expropriation on April 12, 2019 by the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on February 22, 2019 and deposited 5,587,500 won of the defendant's business compensation set forth in the ruling of expropriation on April 5, 2019. Thus, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and accepted.