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...

Facts of recognition

The plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and maintenance project association established to improve residential environment in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government 89,853 square meters where infrastructure for rearrangement is inferior and worn-out and inferior buildings are concentrated pursuant to Article 13 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the "Urban Improvement Act"). The defendant is a building in the attached list within the above zone (hereinafter referred to as the "building in this case") and the owner and occupant of the site in this case, who has not applied for

The plaintiff was authorized to establish the association on April 21, 2009 from the head of Seongbuk-gu, the authorization to implement the project on April 4, 2013, and the authorization to implement the management and disposal plan on December 22, 2014, and was publicly notified on December 26, 2014.

On June 26, 2015, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal rendered a ruling to expropriate the building and its site for the above rearrangement project, and set the compensation to the defendant at KRW 781,735,000, for the above rearrangement project.

On August 11, 2015, prior to the date of commencement of expropriation prescribed in the above ruling (on August 14, 2015), the Plaintiff deposited KRW 781,735,000 for the Defendant as the deposited person.

【In the absence of dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including a provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings by the defendant pursuant to Article 49(6) and (3) of the Act on Urban Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, if the management and disposal plans are authorized and publicly announced, the use and profit-making of the previous owner, etc. of the subject matter shall be suspended, and the project implementer shall be able to take over the subject matter and take profits from the subject matter to start the construction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da28394, Nov. 24, 201). Accordingly, according to the above facts of recognition,

Whether the judgment of the defendant's assertion is invalid or not, ① the plaintiff did not notify the owner of the land, etc. of the general details of the charges when publicly announcing the application for parcelling-out, ② the management and disposal plan.