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

3.Paragraph 1.

A. Under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), the Plaintiff is an association established to implement a housing redevelopment improvement project for the area of 91,318.2 square meters in Geumcheon-gu, Busan pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”). On May 26, 2009, the Plaintiff was authorized to establish an association by the head of the Si/Gu in Busan, which was approved by the head of the Si/Gu, on August 1, 2012, and was subject to the authorization of the project implementation on August

B. The Defendant, as the owner of the attached building located in the above improvement zone (hereinafter “instant building”), occupies the instant building.

C. The Plaintiff filed an application for expropriation with the competent local Land Tribunal in Busan Metropolitan City, which did not reach an agreement on the purchase of the instant building between the Defendant and the Defendant, who is a person subject to cash settlement who did not file an application for

On July 14, 2014, the Committee rendered a ruling that the Plaintiff expropriates the instant building with the total amount of KRW 372,069,510 on September 11, 2014 from the date of expropriation on September 11, 2014.

On August 27, 2014, the Plaintiff deposited the full amount of compensation under the above expropriation ruling.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, after the authorization and announcement of the above management and disposal plan was made, the plaintiff deposited compensation for losses pursuant to the above expropriation ruling and completed compensation for losses pursuant to the proviso of Article 49 (6) of the Urban Improvement Act. Thus, the defendant whose use and profit from the building of this case has been suspended pursuant to the public announcement of the above management and disposal plan is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim before the reasonable compensation for loss is completed.

Article 49 (6) of the Urban Improvement Act is authorized.