1. The Plaintiff:

(a) Defendant B shall have the real property listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2;

B. Defendant C shall set forth in the attached list No. 1.

1. Basic facts

A. During Ansan-si, the Plaintiff is an association that implements redevelopment and improvement projects (hereinafter “instant redevelopment project”) in the Gu H Ilwon (41,856 square meters). The Defendants owned or possessed each real estate located within the said improvement zone (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On March 26, 2019, the Plaintiff obtained authorization of the instant redevelopment project implementation plan in accordance with the Urban and Residential Environment Rearrangement Act (hereinafter “Urban and Residential Environment Rearrangement Act”) in accordance with the public notice of Ansan-si from the Ansan-si market. On March 4, 2020, the Plaintiff obtained the approval plan for the instant redevelopment project management and disposal plan for the instant redevelopment project from the Ansan-si market.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 to 6 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. When the notice of provisional notice, which is a management and disposition plan under Article 78(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Grounds for Claim, is given, the use or profit of the right holder, such as the owner of the previous land or building and the person holding the right to lease on a deposit basis, is suspended pursuant to Article 81(1) of the same Act, and the project implementer is entitled to use or profit from the former land or building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). Thus, the Defendants whose use or profit has been suspended as the owner and the user according to the notice of the management and disposition plan as seen earlier are obligated to deliver

Provided, That the land which is the site of a building shall be possessed by the owner of the building, and the person who is not the owner of the building shall actually possess the building, and

Even if there is no person who occupies the site of the building (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da57935 delivered on November 13, 2003, etc.), the request for extradition against the Defendant G, the lessee, for the real estate stated in paragraph (3) of the attached Table, is groundless.

3. Determination as to Defendant G’s defense

A. As to Defendant G, the summary of the assertion is proviso to Article 81(1) of the Act on the Law of the Law of the Republic of Korea.