1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B’s real estate listed in Appendix 1,

B. Defendant C shall deliver each of the real estate listed in Appendix 7.

Facts of recognition

On February 4, 2009, the Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association that completed the establishment registration with the approval of establishment under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) from the head of Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu on February 4, 2009, and the Defendant B occupies the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 and the real estate listed in the attached Table 7.

The head of Nowon-gu publicly announced the approval of the project implementation on May 1, 2014 to the plaintiff, and publicly announced the approval of the management and disposal plan on April 14, 2016.

【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, 7, Gap evidence 3-1, 4-5, Gap evidence 5-1, 5-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings (in the case of defendant Eul, a confession as to the grounds for a claim, if the management and disposal plan is authorized and publicly notified pursuant to Article 49(6) and (3) of the Urban Improvement Act, the use and profit-making of the previous owner, lessee, 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 project (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da28394, Nov. 24, 201). According to the above facts of recognition, according to the above, defendant Eul-1 and the defendant C is obligated to hand over the real estate listed in the attached

Defendant C’s assertion asserts that, during the two years from March 3, 2014, Defendant C leased the real estate listed in attached Form 7 KRW 20 million to the lessor, and that, as the lessor did not receive the deposit, it cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s request for extradition.

However, Defendant C leased the above real property.

Since there is no evidence to prove that the deposit reaches KRW 20 million, the above assertion shall not be accepted.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.