(a) Defendant B is a building listed in paragraph 3 of the attached Table 1 list;

B. Defendant C is listed in the Appendix 2 List.

A. On July 20, 2015, the Plaintiff received the approval of the management and disposal plan on July 20, 2015, and publicly notified as G public notice of the management and disposal plan of the Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City on July 29, 2015.

B. The Defendants are the occupants of each building listed in the separate sheet located within the pertinent business area (hereinafter “each building of this case”).

C. On February 20, 2017, the Busan Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal decided on May 4, 2017 the commencement date of expropriation and rendered a ruling of expropriation on each of the instant buildings, etc.

On November 21, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded an agreement with Defendant D on business loss compensation with Defendant C on February 9, 2017, and paid compensation for expropriation to Defendant E on April 13, 2017. On April 20, 2017, the Plaintiff deposited compensation for expropriation with Defendant B as depositee.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 7, and 10 (including branch numbers in case of additional number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The main text of Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents provides that “When the authorization of a management and disposal plan is publicly announced, a right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, etc. of the previous land or structure, shall not use or benefit from the previous land or structure until the public announcement of relocation is made pursuant to Article

Since the head of Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City approving the Plaintiff’s housing redevelopment project and publicly notified the fact, the Defendants, the occupant of each building of this case located within the implementation zone of the instant rearrangement project, are obligated to deliver the same to the Plaintiff, who is the project implementer, and the Defendants’ assertion was examined, but there is no ground to view otherwise.

3. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants in this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning.