(a) Defendant B and C are buildings listed in the separate sheet No. 2;

B. Defendant D shall use the buildings listed in Appendix 4 List 2.

A. On June 29, 2005, the Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment project partnership that obtained approval for the establishment of a project under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) from the head of Busan District from the head of Busan District, which designates 126,834.1m2 as the project implementation district.

B. The head of Busan District Government authorized the management and disposal plan on August 21, 2018 after the project implementation authorization was granted to the Plaintiff, and publicly notified on August 29, 2018.

C. The Defendants are owners or lessees of each of the following buildings located within the project zone for the said rearrangement project:

Buildings listed in attached Table 4(2) of attached Table 4(2) of the building owned or occupied by the P, and attached Table 7(1) of the buildings listed in attached Table 3(2)

D. Meanwhile, on October 28, 2019, the expropriation ruling was made on the date of commencement of expropriation on December 23, 2019 with respect to the above improvement project, and the Plaintiff deposited each of the compensation for losses as stipulated in the above expropriation ruling with Defendant B and E as each of the deposited parties.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants cannot use or benefit from each owned or occupied building pursuant to the main sentence of Article 81(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas.

Therefore, the defendants have the duty to deliver each owned or occupied building to the plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. Defendant B, C’s assertion and judgment, Defendant B, and C alleged that the Plaintiff could not comply with the Plaintiff’s request for extradition because the business compensation set forth in the expropriation ruling was written. However, the Plaintiff deposited the compensation for expropriation decision with Defendant B as the depositee, as seen earlier, and the compensation for losses pursuant to the Land Compensation Act under the proviso of Article 81(1) of the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions by the Plaintiff deposit the compensation for losses shall be deemed to have been completed, and whether the compensation for losses was either under-paid or unreasonable or unreasonable is raised