A. Defendant B and C deliver the building indicated in Appendix 1;

B. Defendant D shall be in attached Form 1.

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 Table 1 (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 and C are co-owners of the instant building, and the members applying for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out are members, and Defendant D and E occupy and use the relevant part as the lessee for the part ordering the relevant Defendants to leave from the order among the instant building.

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

2. Where the competent administrative agency has publicly announced an approval plan for the management and disposal of the building of this case as to the cause of the claim, the owner, superficies, leasee, etc. of the previous land or building cannot use or profit from the land or building until the date of the 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, for the Plaintiff who acquired the right to use or benefit from the building of this case as the project implementer, the Defendant B and C, the co-owner of the building of this case, and the Defendant D and E, the lessee, are obligated to deliver the building of this case to the

3. As to the defendants' assertion, the defendants asserted that the management and disposal plan of the plaintiff is invalid, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, the Defendants asserted that they cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim until the Defendants’ compensation for losses is paid. However, Defendant C and E claim for compensation for losses against the Plaintiff.