1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate stated in the attached Form.

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

3. The foregoing.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association whose project area covers 33,445.0 square meters in Dong-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City. The Plaintiff obtained authorization to establish the association from the head of the Dong-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City on April 30, 2008, the authorization to implement the project on November 6, 2014, and the authorization to implement the management and disposal plan on October 5, 2015, and the head of the Dong-gu announced the details of the authorization to implement the above management and disposal plan on October 5, 2015.

B. The defendant applied for parcelling-out to the plaintiff as the owner of the real estate located in the order of the plaintiff's improvement zone.

【Fact that there is no dispute over the ground for recognition】

2. Determination

A. When the approval of 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”) is publicly announced, the use and profit of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leaseer, etc. of the previous land or buildings shall be suspended, 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); barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate located in the business area of the rearrangement project of this case to the Plaintiff who acquired the right to use and benefit pursuant to

B. For this, the Defendant’s assertion to the effect that the value of the right to the real estate stated in the order is too low, and that the Plaintiff’s request cannot be accepted, or that a management and disposal plan formulated by the project implementer according to the Defendant’s application for parcelling-out is authorized and publicly notified, the circumstance that the Defendant’s decision is low cannot be deemed justifiable grounds for the Defendant to refuse to deliver the real estate of this case, and that there is the project implementer’s consent under the proviso of Article 49(6) of the Urban Improvement Act.