1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association established on November 30, 201 pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) to implement a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”) on the scale of 204,123 square meters in Ulsan Metropolitan City, Ulsan Metropolitan City.

B. On February 27, 2017, the Plaintiff was authorized by the head of Ulsan Metropolitan City with respect to the instant improvement project from the head of the Gu, and the head of Ulsan Metropolitan City with the notice of the approval plan for the management and disposal of the said project on the same day.

C. The defendant is currently occupying and using the above real estate as the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet.

The defendant did not file an application for parcelling-out with the plaintiff within the period for application for parcelling-out.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. According to the main sentence of Article 81(1), Article 78(3), and Article 86 of the Act on the Determination of Grounds for Claim, the owner, lessee, etc. of the previous land or building shall not use or benefit from the previous land or building. According to the above recognition facts, the defendant, who is the owner of real estate listed in the attached list within the rearrangement zone of the instant rearrangement project, lost the right to use or benefit from the above real estate and acquired the above right to use or benefit from the plaintiff as the project implementer. Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the above real estate to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

B. The defendant's defense to the effect that since the plaintiff was unable to obtain the right to use and benefit from the real estate of this case because the defendant did not make a ruling of expropriation but received the compensation, etc. for cash settlement, the plaintiff cannot seek the delivery of the

Article 81 (1) (proviso) and (2) of the Urban Improvement Act shall acquire land, etc. for public works.