1. The defendant shall indicate the drawings 1, 2, 3, 4 and 2 of the attached Form 2 among the buildings listed in the attached Table list and the first floor of the same building as the second floor 76.36 square meters.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment project partnership established for a housing redevelopment project with a project implementation district of 104,979.30 square meters in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the Plaintiff was granted authorization from the head of Seongbuk-gu Office for the establishment of a housing redevelopment project on June 25, 2009; the authorization for the implementation of a project on October 23, 2012; the authorization for the implementation of a project on November 7, 2013; and the authorization for the implementation of a project on April 24, 2014; and the above management and disposal plan was publicly notified on April 24, 2014.

B. The Defendant leased, occupied, and used the 15 square meters indication of drawings 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of the attached Table 2 among the buildings with the same 2 floor area and 76.36 square meters among the buildings listed in the attached Table list from D.

C. The Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal, which did not reach an agreement on business loss compensation with the Defendant. On August 22, 2014, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal decided to compensate KRW 24,885,000 to the Defendant.

On October 8, 2014, the Plaintiff deposited the full amount of compensation for losses under the above acceptance ruling with the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7 (including virtual number), Gap evidence Nos. 6 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. When a public notice of a management and disposal plan under Article 49(3) of the Act on the Determination of Grounds for Claim is given, the use and profit-making of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, leasee, etc. of the previous land or buildings shall be suspended pursuant to Article 49(6) of the same Act, 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). Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to

3. That the proviso of Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas, as to the Defendant’s assertion, has been completed in response to the main sentence of paragraph (6).