1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B: (a) the buildings listed in Section 1 of [Attachment I];

B. Defendant C is listed in Appendix 1 List 2.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 29, 2005, the Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment project partnership that obtained authorization for the establishment of a project under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) from the head of Busan District from the head of Busan District with the area of the project as the area of the project.

B. The head of Busan District Government authorized the management and disposal plan on August 21, 2018 after the project implementation authorization was granted to the Plaintiff, and publicly notified on August 29, 2018.

C. The Defendants are owners or lessees of each of the following buildings located within the project zone for the said rearrangement project:

A building specified in paragraph (2) of the attached Table 1 (attached Form 1) shall be a building specified in paragraph (2) of the attached Table 2 (attached Form 2) of the building C (attached Form 3) of the building owned or occupied by the Defendant.

D. Meanwhile, on October 28, 2019, on the other hand, with respect to the above improvement project, the expropriation ruling was made on December 23, 2019, and the Plaintiff deposited the Defendants each compensation for losses as stipulated in the above expropriation ruling.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants cannot use or benefit from each owned or occupied building pursuant to the main sentence of Article 81(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas.

Therefore, the defendants have the duty to deliver each owned or occupied building to the plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. Defendant C’s assertion and judgment asserted that the Plaintiff was unable to comply with the Plaintiff’s request for extradition due to the Plaintiff’s failure to receive resettlement funds, housing relocation expenses, and director expenses (hereinafter “resident relocation expenses, etc.”). However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant C is the right holder entitled to receive the housing relocation expenses, etc., the above assertion is without merit.

B. Defendant E’s assertion and judgment are compensation for losses as determined by the expropriation ruling.