1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B: The real estate listed in the separate sheet 1

B. Defendant C shall provide the real estate listed in the separate sheet 2.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff is the Mayor of Seo-gu Busan Metropolitan City Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) for the purpose of housing redevelopment improvement project for D members

(2) The Defendant B received the authorization for the change of the project implementation on August 17, 2015, and the authorization for the management and disposal plan on March 2, 2016.

The owner of the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 within the redevelopment project zone stated in the paragraph, and the defendant C is the co-owner (2/13 shares) of the real estate (unregistered buildings) listed in the attached Table 2, and became a cash liquidator because he did not apply for the sale within the period of application for the unit

3) The Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication of expropriation with the competent Regional Land Expropriation Committee of Busan Metropolitan City, which did not reach an agreement on cash clearing with the Defendants, and filed an application for adjudication of expropriation on April 10, 2017 (the date of commencement of expropriation) after the adjudication of expropriation by the said Committee was finalized (the date of commencement of expropriation), June 1, 2017, deposited KRW 148,365,80, and KRW 10,352,350 on the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 on June 14, 2017 with Defendant B, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of expropriation on June 2, 2017.

B. As to the facts found in the above determination, the Plaintiff received the public notice of approval of the management and disposal plan under Article 49(6) of the Urban Improvement Act and deposited the compensation for the Defendants’ expropriation decision. Thus, the Defendants are obligated to deliver each real estate owned to the Plaintiff, except in extenuating

2. Defendant B’s assertion disputing the purport that Defendant B could express the real estate owned by the Plaintiff, such as relocation expenses, resettlement funds, and moving expenses, etc. However, the claim for compensation for losses by the owner, etc. who had been relocated due to lawful implementation of public works is a right under public law. Therefore, the lawsuit surrounding the compensation is not a civil procedure, but a legal relationship under public law.