1. The defendant received KRW 28,000,000 from the plaintiff, and simultaneously the ground floor of the real estate stated in the attached Table to the plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. (1) The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction project association approved by the head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents on September 4, 2008 (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

(2) On June 21, 2013, the Plaintiff obtained authorization from the head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Seoul Jung-gu”) to implement the project with the enforcement area of 68,255.8 square meters, and was authorized to implement the management and disposition plan on January 22, 2015, and was publicly notified.

(D) (3) The defendant is currently occupying the real estate of this case located in the project implementation district of this case as the lessee.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers for those with a satisfy number), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Article 49(6) of the Act on the Determination of Urban Improvement provides that “When a management and disposal plan is authorized and such public notice is given, a right holder such as the owner, lessee, etc. of the previous land or structure shall not use or benefit from the previous land or structure until the public notice of relocation is given in accordance with Article 54.”

According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the defendant whose use or profit has been suspended pursuant to the authorization and public notice of the management and disposal plan under the Urban Improvement Act is obligated to deliver the above real estate to the plaintiff who acquired the right to use or profit from the instant real estate as the project

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion: (a) prepared an institutional device called “pre-consultative body” in order to find out the rights of tenants who are not protected by law; and (b) had them operate the “Urban Dispute Mediation Committee” if no agreement was reached up to five times; and (c) monitor to prevent compulsory removal, etc.; and (d) more than five times according to the “pre-consultative body management plan” submitted by the Plaintiff to the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.