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. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleading in Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including paper numbers):

(1) The Plaintiff is the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association established for the purpose of implementing the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project (hereinafter “instant Improvement Project”) whose business area covers 62,245.8 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

(2) The Plaintiff received the authorization for project implementation on March 6, 2014 from the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the authorization for the management and disposal plan on December 8, 2014, and the head of Mapo-gu publicly announced the authorization for the management and disposal plan on March 12, 2015.

(3) The Defendant is the owner of the building located in the project zone of the instant rearrangement project and is the Plaintiff’s member (the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is not the Plaintiff’s member, but is not acceptable in light of the statement No. 6-1 and No. 2, etc.) and currently occupies and uses the instant building.

B. (1) Article 49(3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents provides that "the head of a Si/Gun shall, when he/she approves a management and disposal plan pursuant to paragraph (2), publish the details thereof in the official report of the relevant local government." The main sentence of Article 49(6) provides that "when a public announcement is made pursuant to paragraph (3), the owner, superficies, leasee, etc. of the previous land or building shall not use or profit from the previous land or building until the date of public announcement of relocation under Article 54

(2) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s partner is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, who is the implementer of the instant improvement project.

2. The conclusion is that the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.