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 the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association whose project implementation district covers 66,094 square meters of land in Eunpyeong-gu.

On April 12, 2006, the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government announced the public inspection of residents of the improvement plan for the designation of the improvement zone. On August 16, 2007, the designation of the improvement zone was issued, the project implementation authorization was issued on May 26, 201, and the project implementation authorization was issued on November 28, 2013, and the management and disposal plan was issued on November 27, 201, and at the same time the details of the approval were publicly announced.

B. The Defendant is the owner of the real estate listed in the attached list of the above rearrangement project zone (hereinafter “instant real estate”), who is subject to cash settlement.

C. The Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication of expropriation with the local Land Tribunal in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which did not hold an agreement on compensation for the instant real estate between the Defendant and the Defendant.

On April 24, 2015, the above commission decided on June 12, 2015 on the date of the commencement of expropriation on the real estate in this case, and on June 12, 2015, the amount of compensation for losses to the defendant as KRW 92,850,000.

On June 8, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 92,850,000 for the Defendant’s compensation for losses as Seoul Western District Court No. 2479 on June 8, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence A1 to 11, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant asserts that the instant lawsuit constitutes abuse of the right of action or violation of the good faith principle on the grounds that: (a) the Defendant, at the time of the instant lawsuit, brought a lawsuit on the premise of future uncertainty in the absence of any claim against the Plaintiff even though the procedure, such as the adjudication of expropriation, etc., was not carried out at the time of the instant lawsuit; and (b) the Plaintiff’s request for delivery may interfere with the Defendant’s appeal procedure for the realization of rights (

However, such circumstance alone is contrary to the abuse of the right of lawsuit or the principle of good faith.