1. The Defendant shall leave the Plaintiff from the 130.056 square meters of the 1st floor of the building indicated in the attached list.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be individually counted.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association established under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) to implement a housing redevelopment project in a zone with the size of 87,883 square meters as an improvement zone with the size of 30,000,000,000.

B. The Plaintiff received the authorization to implement the project on June 27, 2014 from the original market, and the authorization to implement the project on June 19, 2015, respectively, and the authorization to implement the management and disposal plan on June 19, 2015, and the original market was publicly notified on June 19, 2015.

C. Nonparty D is the owner of the building indicated in the attached list located in the rearrangement zone and completing the application for parcelling-out, and the Defendant is the occupant of the building indicated in paragraph (1) of this case (hereinafter “instant building”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the cause of the claim

A. The main text of Article 49(6) of the Urban Improvement Act provides that “When the authorization of a management and disposition plan is publicly announced, any right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, leasee, etc. of the previous land or building, shall not use or profit from the previous land or building until the date of the public announcement of transfer under Article 54.” Thus, when the approval of a management and disposition plan is publicly notified, the use or profit-making of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, leasee, etc. of the previous land or building shall be suspended, and the project implementer may use or profit from the former land or building (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27,

Therefore, the defendant whose use or profit is suspended as the lessee according to the notification of the above management and disposal plan is obligated to leave the building in this case to the plaintiff who acquired the right to use or profit as the project implementer.

3. As to the defense

A. The Defendant operates the malicious points of “E” in the instant building, but against its goodwill.