1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 11,64,790 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from April 23, 2016 to the date of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a cooperative established for the purpose of implementing a housing redevelopment improvement project with the project implementation district of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government one thousand square meters and 104,979.30 square meters. The Plaintiff obtained respectively authorization from the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Seongbuk-gu Office for the establishment of the association on June 25, 2009, the implementation of the project on October 23, 2012, the implementation of the project on November 7, 2013, and the head of Seongbuk-gu Office approved the management and disposal plan formulated by the Plaintiff on April 24, 2014, and publicly notified the details thereof on the same day.

B. The Defendant occupied and used the building by April 5, 2016, as the owner of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Land and the above ground building (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 9, 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. When a management and disposal plan under Article 49(3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) for the cause of the claim is publicly notified, the use and profit of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, lessee, etc. for 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 transfer the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, who acquired the right to use and profit in accordance with the public notice of the management and disposal plan

B. (1) The Defendant asserts that the disposition plan approved by the head of Seongbuk-gu Office is invalid, and the Plaintiff does not have a duty to deliver the instant real estate, and that the unjust enrichment is not constituted even if the instant real estate is occupied and used.

In the instant case, spam, etc.