1. The Plaintiff:

(a) Defendant B, among the first floor of the buildings listed in the attached Table 1 list, shall be subject to the indication of Attached 1 drawings, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 2.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association that obtained authorization from the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on September 2, 2013 for the purpose of housing redevelopment and rearrangement project whose business zone covers Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Dongdaemun-gu D.

B. The Plaintiff received project implementation authorization from the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on September 10, 2015, and received a management and disposal plan pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) on May 18, 2017, and the said project implementation authorization and management and disposal plan were publicly announced on September 10, 2015 and May 18, 2017.

B. Defendant B is a lessee of the building indicated in the attached Table 1 attached hereto owned by the Plaintiff’s business area, and Defendant C is a lessee of the building indicated in the attached Table 2 attached hereto located in the Plaintiff’s business area, and part of each of the above buildings is occupied as indicated in paragraph 1 of the same Article, and E is a member of the association, who

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment on the cause of the claim, as long as the Plaintiff received a public notice of authorization for a management and disposal plan under the provisions of the Urban Improvement Act, the laws prior to the enforcement of the amended Act by Act No. 14943 on October 24, 2017 were cited.

Since the use and profit-making of right holders, such as the owner, lessee, etc. of the previous building, is suspended pursuant to Article 49(3) and (6), the defendants who partially possess the attached building in the business area are obligated to deliver the part of possession of each defendant to the plaintiff who became entitled to use and profit from the building in the business area

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da22094 Decided December 22, 1992, and Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635 Decided May 27, 2010, etc.) B.

The judgment on Defendant B’s assertion is based on the relationship between Defendant B and Defendant B’s obligation to return lease deposit amounting to KRW 10,000,000 under Article 44 of the Plaintiff’s Act, and Defendant B’s obligation to return the occupied portion.