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. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 through 7 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff is an association that implements the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”) under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”); the management and disposal plan concerning the instant rearrangement project was authorized and publicly announced on November 19, 2015; the Defendant occupied the ownership of the real estate in the attached list located within the instant rearrangement project zone as the owner of the real estate indicated in the attached list; and the Plaintiff deposited the compensation determined by the Seoul Metropolitan City local Land Expropriation Committee’s decision on expropriation of the said real estate owned by the Defendant on November 2016.

Article 49 (6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents”) provides that “When authorization or public notice of a management and disposal plan has been given, a right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, etc. of the previous land or building, shall not use or profit from the previous land or building until the date of public notice of relocation under Article 54.” Thus, due to authorization and public notice of a management and disposal plan, a defendant, who is the real estate owner, shall lose the right to use

(2) The court below held that the defendant's obligation to deliver the real estate as seen earlier is not affected by the defendant's obligation to deliver the real estate since the amount of compensation due to the expropriation ruling is less than the market price, and thus, the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.

2. The plaintiff's claim is accepted as reasonable.