A. 1) The Plaintiff is a cooperative established on May 31, 2010 by obtaining authorization for the establishment of the Bupyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government for the redevelopment project for A Housing under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “instant redevelopment project”). 2) The Plaintiff received the authorization for the implementation of the instant redevelopment project from the Seocheon-si City on February 6, 2017, respectively, on May 4, 2018, from the Seocheon-gu, the approval for the implementation of the management and disposal plan for the instant redevelopment project on May 4, 2018, and the Seocheon-gu Mayor publicly notified the management and disposal plan on May 4, 2018.

3) Defendant B is in possession of the building indicated in paragraph (1) of the attached Table of Real Estate List (hereinafter “instant building”) which is the section for common use of the H of the building on the FG building in Bupyeong-si, Busan in the instant redevelopment project improvement zone (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. 1) As the management and disposal plan of the instant redevelopment project is authorized and publicly announced, Defendant B was unable to use or profit from the instant building pursuant to Article 81(1) of the Urban Improvement Act, and Defendant B is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, Defendant B, as the de facto owner of the instant building, cannot deliver the instant building until the compensation for losses under the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects is completed.

However, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking confirmation of membership (Seoul District Court 2010Guhap5459) by asserting the ownership of the building of this case, namely, the circumstances that may be known by the respective descriptions of No. 6-1 and No. 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings, but the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant B on September 29, 201 on the ground that the building of this case only falls under the co-ownership, and it cannot be subject to sectional ownership, and that Defendant B’s claim is against this.