1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 attached hereto.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff was an association that implements a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”) with the area of project implementation of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Western District of 53,073 square meters as a project implementation district, and obtained authorization for the establishment of the association on December 24, 2009, and obtained authorization for the implementation of the project on November 1, 2012. The head of Seodaemun-gu Office authorized and publicly announced a management and disposal plan for the instant rearrangement project on March 24, 2016.

B. The real estate indicated in the separate sheet No. 1 is located within the instant rearrangement project zone as the Defendant’s ownership, and the Defendant completed the application for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out, but on November 16, 2015 and June 20, 2016, issued a certificate to the effect that the Plaintiff would withdraw the application for parcelling-out.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 2 to 5 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The main text of Article 49(6) of the Act on the Determination of Urban Improvement provides that “When the authorization of a management and disposition plan is publicly announced, a right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, etc. of the previous land or structure, shall not use or profit from the previous land or structure until the date the relocation of the land or structure is publicly announced pursuant to Article 54.” The fact that the management and disposition plan of the instant rearrangement project was authorized and publicly announced on March 24, 2016 is as seen earlier. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the Plaintiff’s real estate

Accordingly, the defendant asserts that it is impossible to comply with the plaintiff's request for extradition of this case before receiving compensation from the plaintiff, since the defendant was subject to cash settlement by withdrawing the application for parcelling-out.

"A person who has withdrawn an application for parcelling-out" subject to cash settlement under Article 47 (1) of the former Urban Improvement Act (Amended by Act No. 12116, Dec. 24, 2013) shall be applied for parcelling-out within the period for application for parcelling-out, but it shall be applied before the expiration of such period.