1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate stated in the attached list.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association whose project implementation district covers 66,094 square meters of land in Eunpyeong-gu.

On April 12, 2006, the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government announced the public inspection of residents of the improvement plan for the designation of the improvement zone; on August 16, 2007, the designation of the improvement zone was made; on May 26, 201, the project implementation authorization was issued; on August 14, 2014; and on November 27, 2014, the management and disposal plan was publicly notified.

B. The Defendant, as a lessee, occupies the real estate in the attached list in the rearrangement project zone (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Gap 3 and 4 evidence, each of 1, 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. When the public notice of approval of a management and disposal plan under Article 49(3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents is given as to the cause of the claim, the use and profit-making of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, and lessee of the previous land or building, shall be suspended pursuant to Article 49(6) of the same Act, and the project implementer shall be entitled to use and profit-making therefrom (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). Therefore, the Defendant whose use and profit-making has been suspended as the lessee pursuant to the public notice of

B. The judgment of the defendant's assertion is that the defendant resided in D before April 12, 2006, which is the date of public inspection and announcement of the designation of the rearrangement zone, and thereafter moved to the plaintiff's rearrangement project zone. D and A, which is the project district of the plaintiff, were designated and announced as the original rearrangement zone, and it is reasonable to pay the relocation cost even in the case of moving the project district differently within the same rearrangement zone.