2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. Under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), the Plaintiff obtained authorization for the establishment of a housing reconstruction project on June 12, 2003 from the head of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government for the purpose of implementing a housing reconstruction project (hereinafter “instant project”) with respect to 150 units of buildings with 405,782.40 square meters of land outside Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul and six lots pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”). On April 208, the Plaintiff was granted authorization for the implementation of the project from the head of Songpa-gu under Article 28 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents; the authorization for the implementation of the project on December 26, 2013; and the head of Songpa-gu publicly notified the management and disposal plan under Article 49(3) of the said Act on January 29, 2015.

B. The Defendant is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the apartment Nos. 33, 502 (hereinafter “instant apartment Nos. 502”) out of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, which belongs to the instant project site.

C. The Plaintiff, upon setting a period from May 2, 2008 to June 27, 2008, issued a public announcement for parcelling-out to its members, and thereafter, received the application for parcelling-out by setting a period from March 10, 2014 to April 30, 2014. The Defendants became a cash liquidation agent on May 1, 2014, as the Defendants did not file the application for parcelling-out until the expiration of the period for application for parcelling-out.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 10 (including provisional number), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. As the head of Songpa-gu Office for the Plaintiff’s assertion authorized and publicly announced a management and disposition plan on January 27, 2015 and January 29, 2015, the Defendants delayed the performance of the duty to deliver the instant apartment to the Plaintiff by the date of the public notice of the management and disposition plan pursuant to Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, and accordingly, delayed the instant project.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is a financial institution that entered into a business agreement due to the delay of the instant business.