1. Among the buildings listed in the attached list to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is classified as 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1.

1. Determination on both arguments

A. If the purport of the entire argument is added to the statements in Gap 1-4, 5-1, 5-2, 6, and 7, the plaintiff, who is the project implementer of the "AAA renewal acceleration zone, obtained authorization for the implementation of the project on September 2014 from the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. As to this, the defendant is not only invalid in both the authorization for the project implementation and the authorization for the management and disposal plan for the plaintiff, but also it is suspected that there is a procedural defect in the process of demanding the written consent of the plaintiff. Thus, although the delivery of the building of this case is inappropriate, there is no evidence to acknowledge each of the above alleged facts, the defendant's appeal against the plaintiff is not acceptable.

2. According to the conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim for the delivery of the instant building, seeking the fulfillment of the duty acknowledged above, is justifiable, and thus accepting it as is.