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

3...

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment improvement project partnership established under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), which is the implementor of the housing redevelopment improvement project in Seo-gu, Busan (hereinafter “instant project zone”) as a rearrangement zone, and the Defendant is the owner of the building in the attached list in the instant project zone (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On March 18, 2015, the Plaintiff obtained the authorization of a management and disposal plan for a housing redevelopment project and obtained the authorization on February 26, 2016, and the said authorization was publicly announced on March 2, 2016.

C. The Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication to expropriate the instant building, etc. with the Defendant, which did not reach an agreement on compensation, and deposited KRW 526,937,810 with the Busan District Court as the principal deposit on July 29, 2016 according to the adjudication to expropriate the instant building, etc. on June 20, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the above alteration plan is authorized and publicly notified so that the defendant's use and profit-making of the building in this case within the rearrangement zone is suspended pursuant to Article 49 (6) of the Urban Improvement Act, and the plaintiff, who is the implementer of the above rearrangement project, can use and profit from the building in this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building in this

B. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the amendment of the management and disposition plan concerning the instant rearrangement project is null and void, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to accept the above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the owners within the instant rearrangement project zone shall not be accepted. Meanwhile, the management and disposition plan and disposition plan