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 a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association established to implement a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project by using the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government 104,979,30 square meters as a project implementation district. On October 23, 2012, the Plaintiff was authorized to implement a management and disposal plan under Article 49 (2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) on April 24, 2014 after obtaining authorization for the project implementation from the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government. The head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office announced the management

B. The Defendant is the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) located within the said project implementation district, who is subject to cash settlement.

C. On August 22, 2014, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal decided to expropriate the instant real estate as of October 10, 2014. Accordingly, on October 7, 2014, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 448,357,440 as compensation for losses to the Defendant at this court’s price 3704.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, Gap evidence No. 3-1, 2, Gap evidence Nos. 6 and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. When a public notice of a management and disposal plan under Article 49(3) of the Act on the Determination of Grounds for Claim is given, the use and profit-making of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, leasee, etc. of the previous land or buildings shall be suspended pursuant to Article 49(6) of the same Act, and the project implementer may use and profit from the former land or buildings (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da22094, Dec. 22, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to the allegation that the management and disposal plan invalidation is invalid, the Defendant publicly announced and announced the Plaintiff’s application for parcelling-out.