1. The defendant shall deliver the building as stated in the attached Form to the plaintiff.

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

3.Paragraph 1.

1. Facts of premise;

A. The Plaintiff refers to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), which was in force at the time of the issue, unless there is a special reference below the Urban Improvement Act.

Pursuant to this, the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Housing Redevelopment Project Association is the project zone, and the defendant is the owner and the occupant of the building attached to the project area.

B. The Plaintiff received authorization from the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Office to establish an association on April 27, 2010, and authorization to implement a project on November 26, 2013, respectively, and on March 18, 2016, the Plaintiff’s management and disposal plan was approved and announced on March 24, 2016.

C. On October 28, 2016, upon the Plaintiff’s request, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal rendered a ruling of expropriation as of December 16, 2016, with the commencement date of expropriation as of October 28, 2016. Accordingly, the Plaintiff deposited the full amount of the loss as determined by the said ruling with the Defendant as the depositee on December 7, 2016.

[Ground for Recognition]: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1-6 evidence (including more than one number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the premise of determination as to the cause of claim, the plaintiff is the implementer of the management and disposal plan under the Urban Improvement Act, and the defendant is the owner and possessor of the building in the attached Form in the improvement zone. If the management and disposal plan is authorized and publicly announced pursuant to Article 49(3) and (6) of the Urban Improvement Act, the use and profit of the right holder, such as the owner and lessee of the previous building, etc., is suspended. Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building to the plaintiff who became entitled to use

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

(1) The Defendant’s assertion is alleged to the effect that the compensation for losses was not properly received, but as long as the Plaintiff deposited the loss as stated in the adjudication of expropriation, it refers to Article 49(6) of the Urban Improvement Act.