1. The defendant shall deliver the second floor among the buildings listed in the attached Form to the plaintiff.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

3...

1. Facts of premise;

A. The plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association whose business area covers the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Nowon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City City Seoul Special Metropolitan City City Readjustment and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

B. The head of Nowon-gu approved the Plaintiff’s management and disposition plan on November 14, 2016 and announced it on November 17, 2016, and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Expropriation Committee rendered a ruling of expropriation on August 25, 2017, which was after the filing of the instant lawsuit, on October 20, 2017.

C. On October 18, 2017, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 36,505,50 as compensation for losses under the above ruling with the Defendant as a deposited person. The Defendant occupied the second floor among the buildings attached to the business area at the time of the closing of argument and did not comply with the Plaintiff’s request for extradition.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 4 (including more than one number), Gap 5-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the premise of determination as to the cause of claim, insofar as the Plaintiff received the authorization of a management and disposal plan under the provisions of the Urban Improvement Act, it is suspended to use and benefit from the right holder, such as the former building owner, lessee, etc. pursuant to Article 49(3) and (6) of the Urban Improvement Act. Therefore, the Defendant, who occupies the second floor among the buildings attached to the project zone, is obliged to deliver the part of the Defendant’s possession to the Plaintiff, which

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

The defendant's argument concerning the defendant's assertion asserts that the plaintiff failed to properly compensate for losses, such as business compensation.

However, as shown in the premise, since the plaintiff deposited the compensation for losses as determined by the expropriation ruling, it is separate from the administrative litigation for the increase of compensation for losses, and the land for public works as stipulated in Article 49 (6) of the Urban Improvement Act.