A. Defendant B delivers the building indicated in the attached Form No. 1;

B. Defendant C shall be attached hereto.

A. The Plaintiff is a cooperative established pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) for the implementation of the redevelopment project, and the building indicated in the attached property (hereinafter “instant building”) belongs to the rearrangement zone.

B. On October 16, 2017, the Changwon market approved and publicly notified the Plaintiff’s management and disposal plan pursuant to Article 78 of the Urban Improvement Act.

C. Defendant B, as the owner of the instant building, uses the instant building, and Defendant C leased an underground floor among the instant building from Defendant B and occupied and used it.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Where an administrative agency having jurisdiction over determination of the cause of the claim publicly notifies the approval plan for the management and disposal plan, the owner, superficies, leaseer, etc. of the previous land or building cannot use or profit from the land or building until the date of public announcement of transfer under Article 86 of the Urban Improvement Act, and the project implementer is entitled to use or profit from the land or building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Da62561, Jul. 24, 2014; 2012Da62561, 62578, etc.). Therefore, the project implementer is obligated to transfer the right to use or benefit from the building of this case to the Plaintiff who acquired the right to use or benefit from the building of this case as the project implementer, and the Defendant C is obligated to withdraw from

3. Defendant B’s assertion is invalid since the management and disposal plan authorized by the original market is invalid, Defendant B’s assertion to the effect that the Plaintiff did not have an obligation to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff. However, there is no evidence to deem the above management and disposal plan invalid (the lawsuit seeking nullification was dismissed in both the first instance court (the Changwon District Court 2017Guhap50452) and the appellate court (the Busan High Court 2018Nu1022).), and Defendant B’s above assertion.