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

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

3...

1. In fact, the Plaintiff is the Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project Association approved by the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government for the purpose of implementing the Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project for the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Western District C.

On November 24, 2014, the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government approved and publicly notified the management and disposal plan for the plaintiff's housing redevelopment improvement project.

The defendant is the owner of the real estate in the attached list of the improvement project zone (hereinafter referred to as "the real estate in this case"), who is subject to cash settlement.

The Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Expropriation Committee as the Plaintiff did not hold a consultation on the compensation of losses on the instant real property.

On February 27, 2015, on April 17, 2015, the Expropriation Committee decided to expropriate the real estate of this case of the defendant as KRW 381,098,200 on compensation for losses.

On April 13, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited the compensation on the ground that the Defendant refused to receive the compensation determined by the ruling.

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence 1, 2, 3, Gap's evidence 4-2, Gap's evidence 13-1, Gap's evidence 16-2, Gap's evidence 16-12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. When the management and disposal plan under Article 49(3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents is publicly announced, use and profit-making by right holders, such as owners, superficies, persons having a right to lease on 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, the Defendant is obliged to deliver the instant real