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...

Facts of recognition

The plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and maintenance project association established to improve residential environment in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government 89,853 square meters where infrastructure for rearrangement is inferior and worn-out and inferior buildings are concentrated pursuant to Article 13 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the "Urban Improvement Act"). The defendant is a building listed in the attached Table within the above zone (hereinafter referred to as the "building in this case") and the owner of the site thereof, who is a person subject to cash liquidation who fails to apply for parcelling-out within

The plaintiff was authorized to establish the association on April 21, 2009 from the head of Seongbuk-gu, the authorization to implement the project on April 4, 2013, and the authorization to implement the management and disposal plan on December 22, 2014, and was publicly notified on December 26, 2014.

On June 26, 2015, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal rendered a ruling to expropriate the instant building and its site for the said rearrangement project on June 26, 2015, to the effect that the business compensation for the Defendant is KRW 32,985,00, and the compensation for the expropriation of the instant building and its site is set at KRW 461,956,740.

On August 4, 2015 and August 11, 2015, prior to the date of expropriation as stipulated in the above ruling (the date of August 14, 2015), the Plaintiff deposited the above business compensation and the full amount of the compensation for expropriation.

【Unfounded Grounds for Recognition, A’s Certificate Nos. 1 through 6 (including a land number), the purport of the entire pleadings, and the authorization and public notice of a management and disposal plan pursuant to Article 49(6) and (3) of the Urban Improvement Act, the use and profit-making of the previous owner, lessee, etc. for the subject matter shall be suspended, and the project implementer may use and profit-making upon delivery of the subject matter to commence the construction work.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da28394, Nov. 24, 2011). According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided to accept it.