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, during Ansan-si, the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association established on May 29, 2012 pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) for the purpose of housing redevelopment improvement project on the land size of 185,269 square meters of the Seoul-gu Seoul-gu Seoul-si Seoul-si. The Plaintiff is the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association which completed the establishment registration on May 29, 2

B. On June 2, 2015, the Plaintiff obtained authorization for the implementation of a housing redevelopment project (hereinafter “instant project”) from the Ansan market, and announced the same date. On April 22, 2016, the Plaintiff publicly announced the management and disposal plan on the same day after obtaining the authorization for the implementation of the relevant housing redevelopment project.

C. The Defendant owned real estate in the attached list within the project site of this case, but did not apply for parcelling-out to the Plaintiff within the period of application for parcelling-out.

On January 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication of expropriation to compensate for losses with the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Tribunal, and on May 15, 2017, the Gyeonggi-do Local Land Tribunal rendered a ruling of expropriation on June 29, 2017 to the Defendant, etc.

Accordingly, on June 20, 2017, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 499,549,590 as compensation for confinement on behalf of the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. When a public notice of a management and disposal plan under Article 49(3) of the Act on the Determination of Grounds for Claim is given, the use and profit-making of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, leasee, etc. of the previous land or buildings shall be suspended pursuant to Article 49(6) of the same Act, and the project implementer may use and profit from the former land or buildings (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da22094, Dec. 22, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). According to the above findings of recognition, the Defendant whose use and profit-making of the real estate stated in the attached list has been suspended due to