1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the building listed in the attached list No. 2.

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

3...

In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff was authorized to implement the housing reconstruction project on February 24, 2009 under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the "Urban Improvement Act") for the purpose of promoting the housing reconstruction project in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which was approved by the head of Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City on August 1, 201, and was approved by the head of Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City on May 8, 2014. The head of Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City announced it on May 15, 201, and the head of Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate in this case") on the real estate in the attached list No. 2 in the above business area (hereinafter referred to as the "the real estate in this

Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas provides that when the authorization of management and disposal plans is publicly announced, the owners, superficies, lease right holders, lease right holders, etc. of the previous land or buildings shall not use or profit from the previous land or buildings without the consent of the project implementer until the date of public announcement of relocation under Article 54 of the same Act. Thus, the plaintiff, who is the project implementer, may proceed with the project by removing, etc. buildings within the rearrangement zone, and for this purpose, the right holders of land or buildings shall transfer the land or

Therefore, according to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

The defendant should be paid compensation such as directors' or brokerage fees, but it is argued that the plaintiff could not respond to the plaintiff's claim. Therefore, Article 49 (6) of the Urban Improvement Act limits the use and profit of the previous building owner, lessee, etc.