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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and improvement project association that obtained authorization from the head of Seocho-gu on March 9, 2015 pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) to implement a reconstruction project in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. The head of Seocho-gu approved the project implementation plan on July 13, 2016 to the Plaintiff, and the head of Seocho-gu approved the management and disposal plan on December 21, 2017 and announced it on December 28, 2017.

C. The buildings listed in the attached list are located within the project implementation district, and the Defendants occupy them as the inheritors of the lessee network B of the above building.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Article 49(6) of the Act on the Determination of Grounds for Claim provides that when the authorization of the management and disposal plan is publicly notified, owners, superficies, leaseers, etc. of the previous land or buildings may not use or profit from the previous land or buildings without the consent of the project implementer until the date the relocation is publicly notified under Article 54 of the same Act. Thus, as seen earlier, insofar as the authorization of the management and disposal plan for the plaintiff is publicly notified, the plaintiff, who is the project implementer, may undertake the project by removing buildings within the rearrangement zone, etc., and for this purpose, the right holder of the land or buildings, shall transfer the land or

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the pertinent building currently possessed by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the Defendants’ assertion

A. The Defendants did not implement the project implementation authorization even though the head of Seocho-gu completed the organization of the prior consultative body and submitted the operation plan before filing an application for authorization for the management and disposal under such conditions.