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. Determination on the cause of the claim

(a) The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 3:

1) The Plaintiff is an improvement zone with a size of 35,133 4 m2,00,000,000,000,000,000

The Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) on September 11, 2008 to implement a redevelopment project under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions

(2) On September 8, 2017, the original city approved and publicly notified the Plaintiff’s change of the project implementation plan and the Plaintiff’s change of the management and disposal plan (hereinafter “instant management and disposal plan”) on October 16, 2017, respectively.

3) Buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”)

(4) The Defendant, as the owner of the instant building, occupies the instant building.

B. Determination 1) The main sentence of Article 81(1) of the Urban Improvement Act provides, “When the authorization of a management and disposition plan is publicly announced, any right holder, such as the owner, superficies, person having a right to lease on a deposit basis, and lessee of the previous land or building, shall not use or profit from the previous land or building until the date the transfer is publicly notified under Article 86.” Thus, when the authorization of a management and disposition plan is publicly notified, use or profit from the former land or building by the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, person having a right to lease on a deposit basis, etc., shall be suspended, and the project implementer may use or benefit from the former land or building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010; 2012Da6251, 62578, Jul.

In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant, whose use and profit-making on the instant building was suspended according to the public notice of the authorization of the instant management and disposal plan, is the project implementer, and the right to use and profit from the instant building.