건물인도
1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the building indicated in the attached list.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
3...
1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 7 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is a cooperative established for the redevelopment of housing A with the area of 35,821.8 square meters in Busan City, which was approved by the management and disposition plan pursuant to Article 49 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”). The above authorized management and disposition plan was publicly notified on June 10, 2015 by the head of Busan, the defendant is the owner of the building in the attached list (hereinafter “the building in this case”) located within the redevelopment project zone and the subject of cash liquidation who did not apply for the purchase of the building in this case and the plaintiff applied for the adjudication of expropriation to the Busan Metropolitan City Land Expropriation Committee, which did not reach an agreement on the compensation for the building in this case, and the above committee deposited the compensation for the damages in this case with the defendant on December 14, 2015 as the whole deposit money and the compensation money for the plaintiff on June 16, 2016.
According to Article 49 (6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas, when the approval of a management and disposal plan is publicly announced, a right holder, such as the owner, superficies, a person having a right to lease on a deposit basis, and a lessee, etc. of the previous land or building, may not use or profit from the previous land or building, and a project implementer may use or profit from it. According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff completed the compensation for losses due to the expropriation ruling after the approval and public announcement
2. The defendant's assertion is alleged to the purport that it is unfair to treat the defendant as a person subject to cash settlement even though the defendant expressed his intention to apply for parcelling-out orally to the plaintiff. However, Article 46 (2) and 46 (2) of the Urban