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

3...

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment project partnership which was established for the purpose of housing redevelopment improvement project with the area of 222,489 square meters of Suwon-si, Suwon-si, as prescribed by the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents and the articles of incorporation, and has obtained authorization to establish an association from the Suwon City on December 17, 2010.

B. The Plaintiff obtained authorization to implement a project on June 29, 2016 from the Suwon City, and authorization for a management and disposal plan on August 25, 2017, respectively, and the Suwon City announced a management and disposal plan approved on August 25, 2017 (Public Notice D in Suwon City).

C. The Defendant occupied the said real estate as co-owners of the real estate listed in the separate sheet located in the project implementation district.

After receiving the ruling of expropriation from the Gyeonggi-do local Land Tribunal on November 9, 2018, the Plaintiff deposited the full amount of compensation for losses as prescribed by the said ruling of expropriation.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, the defendant is obligated to deliver to the plaintiff who acquired the right to use and benefit in accordance with the notice of the management and disposal plan to the real estate in the attached list

The defendant's assertion argues that the defendant did not receive business compensation from the plaintiff for the office in operation on the real estate stated in the attached list, and that he did not have a duty to deliver it since he did not receive the housing relocation expenses and the directors' expenses.

However, the Defendant operated an office subject to business loss compensation in the real estate listed in the attached list.

Since there is no evidence to prove that each of the above compensation requirements is satisfied due to the residence of the above real estate or the above real estate, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.