1. The Defendants constitute each Defendant listed in Section B, among the “Indication of the real estate to be delivered to each Defendant” listed in the attached Table to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that obtained authorization for the establishment of a housing redevelopment project in Daegu Suwon-gu pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

B. The Plaintiff’s management and disposition plan is authorized on March 21, 2019, and the same year.

4.1. The notice was given.

C. The Defendants, located within the instant rearrangement project zone, indicate “the real estate to be delivered to each Defendant” as indicated in the attached Table, respectively, occupies the relevant Defendant’s building as a lessee.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. 1) When a management and disposal plan is approved and publicly announced in a housing redevelopment project, the lessee of the building in the rearrangement zone cannot use or benefit from the property (Article 81(1) of the Urban Improvement Act) and deliver the property to the project implementer (Article 81(2) of the same Act). According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants, the lessee, are obligated to deliver the property to the Plaintiff as the project implementer, the “mark of the real estate to be delivered to

B. The Defendant alleged to the effect that the cost of moving a director and moving a house are too low compared to other persons in a situation similar to the Defendant. However, the cost of moving a house and moving a house (Article 54(2) and Article 55(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects) received by the person relocating due to public works projects are the money given in the social security level for those who would suffer special difficulties due to moving a house, along with the policy purpose to encourage early migration and facilitate the implementation of the project, and is the right under public law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Du4068, Oct. 31, 2017). In light of the nature of the cost of moving a house and moving a director, it can be deemed that the payment is the requirement for the duty of delivering the above Defendant’s building, or that there is a relation with each other’s performance.