1. 피고는 원고에게 별지 목록 기재 건물 중 별지 도면 표시 ㄹ, ㅁ, ㅂ, ㅠ, ㄹ의 각 점을...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association whose project implementation district is 89,853.4m2 in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and is granted authorization for project implementation on April 11, 2013 by the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and was granted authorization for project implementation on December 22, 2014 pursuant to Article 49 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), and the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly notified the management and disposal plan on December 26

나. 피고는 별지 건물 목록 기재 건물 중 별지 도면 표시 ㄹ, ㅁ, ㅂ, ㅠ, ㄹ의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선내 (나)부분 25.625㎡(이하 ‘이 사건 건물’이라 한다)를 점유사용하고 있다.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. When a public notice of a management and disposal plan under Article 49(3) of the Act on the Determination of Grounds for Claim is given, the use and profit-making of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, mortgagee, leasee, etc. of 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 obligated to deliver the building of this case to the Plaintiff who acquired the right

B. The defendant's assertion 1) argues that the lawsuit of this case brought before a ruling of acceptance was unlawful as it constitutes abuse of right, but as long as a ruling of acceptance was made, it cannot be viewed as abuse of right solely because the previous lawsuit was filed under the scheduled circumstances. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit. 2) The defendant asserts to the purport that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim before the ruling of acceptance and payment of compensation.