1. The Defendant points out each of the attached drawings indication 1, 2, 3, 4 and 1 among the real estate listed in the attached list to the Plaintiff.

1. If there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the claim, or if Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 is added, the following facts are recognized, and the defendant has the same obligation as the written order against the plaintiff.

(1) The plaintiff is an association established to implement an urban environment improvement project (hereinafter "the improvement project of this case") with the project area of 10,871.8 square meters in Busan Dong-gu, Busan Metropolitan City as the project district, and the head of Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City is authorized to establish an association on June 30, 2005, and completed the registration of incorporation on July 29, 2005.

(2) On December 4, 2014, the head of the Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City approved the management and disposal plan formulated by the Plaintiff regarding the instant improvement project pursuant to Article 48 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), and publicly notified the details thereof as D public notification of Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City, Busan Metropolitan City pursuant to Article 49(3) of the Urban Improvement Act on December 10, 2014.

(3) The Defendant leased and operated the instant real estate located within the instant rearrangement project zone (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and possessed the instant real estate.

(4) When the approval of the management and disposal plan stipulated in Article 49(3) of the Urban Improvement Act is publicly notified, the use and profit-making by the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, leasee, etc. against the previous land or buildings shall be suspended pursuant to Article 49(6) of the same Act, and the project implementer may use and profit from the former land or buildings (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da22094, Dec. 22, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). 2. The Plaintiff’s claim