1. The Defendant shall deliver to the Plaintiff the attached list, the real estate recorded in the attached list, the middle-house tower 2.21 square meters.

2.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and improvement project association established for the purpose of housing reconstruction project with the size of 47,501.4 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul E, Seoul as a rearrangement zone; the authorization of the establishment on June 4, 2010; the authorization of the project implementation on March 27, 2013; the authorization of the management and disposal plan on July 8, 2014; and the authorization of the management and disposal plan was obtained from the head of Mapo-gu on April 24, 2015; and the head of Mapo-gu announced the authorization of the management and disposal plan on April 30, 2015

B. Defendant B is the owner of real estate 1/2 shares in the attached list in the above rearrangement zone and is the Plaintiff’s partner, and Defendant C and D are the mother of Defendant B and the mother of Defendant B, and the Defendants jointly possess 2.21 square meters of a rooftop among the real estate listed in the attached list.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Residential Environments Act, when the approval of a management and disposal plan is publicly announced, the owner, etc. of the previous land or building cannot use the previous land or building until the date the relocation is publicly announced. Therefore, the Defendants, who are the right holders of a building in a rearrangement zone, are obliged to deliver the building in

B. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not pay relocation expenses under Article 37 of the Plaintiff’s articles of association on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not consent to F, a co-owner of the real estate listed in the attached list.

However, since the obligation to pay the moving expenses of the association pursuant to the articles of association of the Plaintiff association cannot be deemed to be related to the duty to deliver real estate by the right holder pursuant to the Urban and Residential Environment Improvement Act, the above assertion on a different premise is without merit without further review.

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted as reasonable.