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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association whose project implementation district covers 5,523 square meters in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul. The Plaintiff obtained authorization for the implementation of the project on February 27, 2009 from the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; the authorization for the implementation of the project on May 1, 2014; and the authorization for the implementation of the project on February 3, 2014 under Article 49 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”); and the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly announced the details of the authorization for the management and disposal plan

B. On May 21, 2015, the Defendant is the owner of the building indicated in the attached list located in the project implementation district, and the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to pay the compensation amounting to KRW 469,018,640 (hereinafter “instant agreement”). However, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to the effect that “if the Defendant’s intention was confirmed, the Plaintiff shall pay the balance, and the transfer of ownership registration shall be acquired by agreement by the Plaintiff immediately after the written agreement.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. When the approval of the management and disposal plan is announced, the owner, superficies, leaseer, etc. of the previous land or structure may not use or profit from the previous land or structure until the date of the public announcement of relocation under Article 54 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas (Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas). According to the above facts, the defendant occupies the above real estate located within the project implementation district, and thus,

B. As to this, the Defendant did not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim prior to the expropriation ruling and the payment of compensation. However, since the Defendant consulted in this case instead of receiving compensation for expropriation, it shall deliver the said real estate to the Plaintiff according to the contents of the consultation, and following the contents of the consultation.