1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the building indicated in the attached list.

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

3...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a cooperative established on May 8, 2009 by obtaining authorization for the establishment of a housing redevelopment project (hereinafter “instant redevelopment project”) under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) with the area of 40,431.40 square meters in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-si as the business district. The Defendant occupied the building as the owner of the building listed in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant building”) located in the improvement zone for the said redevelopment project.

B. On February 26, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) obtained authorization to implement the instant redevelopment project from the Bupyeong-si mayor; (b) obtained authorization to alter the implementation of the relevant redevelopment project on July 25, 2013; and (c) received authorization to implement the relevant management and disposal plan on May 9, 2016; and (d) announced the said management and disposal plan on May 16, 2016.

C. On February 27, 2017, upon the Plaintiff’s application for the adjudication of expropriation, the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Tribunal decided on April 13, 2017 on the commencement date of expropriation and decided on expropriation of the instant building and payment of compensation for losses to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant adjudication of expropriation”). D.

On April 11, 2017, the Plaintiff deposited the total amount of KRW 986,458,000 as the Defendant for the deposited money under the Incheon District Court Branch Decision 2017Hun-Ga1064 Decided April 11, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 11, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the facts acknowledged earlier, since the management and disposal plan of the redevelopment project of this case was authorized and publicly announced, and the Defendant cannot use or profit from the building of this case pursuant to the main sentence of Article 49(6) of the Act, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the Plaintiff.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim because the compensation procedure was not completed.

However, Article 40 of the Urban Improvement Act.