1. The plaintiff

A. Defendant B delivers a building listed in the separate sheet;

B. The defendant C shall list the annexed list.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an association that implements a housing redevelopment improvement project pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the “Urban Improvement Act”). On October 2, 2008, the Plaintiff obtained the authorization for the establishment of the Nam-gu Busan Metropolitan Government D Day as the project area from the Nam-gu Busan Metropolitan City head

B. Defendant B, as the owner of the attached building located within the above project zone (hereinafter “instant building”), became a cash liquidation agent because he did not apply for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out, and Defendant C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) occupies two floors among the instant building.

C. On August 13, 2012, the Plaintiff obtained the approval of a project implementation plan from the head of the Nam-gu Busan Metropolitan Government, and the said project implementation plan was publicly announced on August 22, 2012, and thereafter, the Plaintiff obtained the approval of a project implementation plan on January 16, 2014, and the said approval of a modification was publicly announced on January 22, 2014, and the Plaintiff obtained the approval of a management and disposal plan on June 2, 2015, and the said management and disposal plan was publicly announced on June 10, 2015.

The Plaintiff filed an application with the competent Regional Land Tribunal for adjudication against the Defendants who did not reach an agreement with the Defendants. On December 14, 2015, the said Committee rendered a ruling on the acceptance of the instant building, etc. by setting the compensation amount of Defendant B as KRW 1,101,235,500.

On the other hand, the defendant company rejected the defendant company's assertion of business loss compensation on the ground that the defendant company is not a person eligible for business loss compensation.

E. On January 27, 2016, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 1,101,235,500 with Defendant B as the principal deposit.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Article 49(6) of the Act on the Determination of the Grounds for Claims provides that “When a management and disposal plan is authorized and such notice is given, the previous land or structure shall be deemed to be the same.