1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate stated in the attached list.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association with the approval of establishment from the head of Busan District Office on January 30, 2007 to implement a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant project”) with the area of 28,597 square meters in Busan District C, Busan District.

B. The Defendant is the owner of the real estate in the attached list in the instant project zone (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and is the Plaintiff’s member who completed the application for parcelling-out on June 13, 2017, within the period for application for parcelling-out as notified by the Plaintiff.

C. On June 28, 2018, the head of Busan District Government authorized the Plaintiff’s management and disposition plan, and announced it on July 4, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2-5, 4-8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Article 81(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents provides that "the owner, superficies, person having a right to the previous land or building, superficies, leaser, etc. shall not use the previous land or building or benefit therefrom until the date of public announcement of transfer under Article 86 of the same Act, if the approval of the management and disposal plan is publicly notified under Article 78(4) of the same Act." According to the evidence No. 7, the Plaintiff’s articles of association stipulate “the obligation to remove and move according to the project implementation plan” as the obligation of union members.

Unless there are special circumstances, the owner of the instant real estate and the Defendant, who is the Plaintiff’s partner, is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, who is the project implementer.

3. The defendant's assertion lacks the requirements for establishing an association due to the lack of the consent rate for establishing an association.