1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B: (a) the buildings listed in the annexed sheet No. 1;

B. Defendant C is a building listed in the separate sheet No. 2. C.

1. Factual basis

A. The Plaintiff obtained authorization for the establishment of a housing redevelopment project (hereinafter “instant redevelopment project”) within the zone of the Busan East-gu E-gu Busan Metropolitan City E (hereinafter “instant redevelopment project”) on April 28, 2006 from the head of the Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City, which was approved on May 12, 2010, and the project implementation plan was approved on August 29, 2014. Based on this, the Plaintiff obtained application for parcelling-out.

B. On July 20, 2015, the Plaintiff received the approval of the management and disposal plan from the head of the Dong, and the head of Dong/Dong publicly notified the approval of the management and disposal plan on July 29, 2015.

C. Defendant B is the owner of each building listed in the separate sheet No. 1, Defendant C is the building listed in the separate sheet No. 2, and Defendant D is the owner of each building listed in the separate sheet No. 3, and each of the above buildings is within the instant redevelopment project zone. The Defendants did not apply for the entire application for the sale.

On February 20, 2017, the Busan Metropolitan City Regional Land Expropriation Committee decided to expropriate each building listed in the separate sheet on May 4, 2017, the date of expropriation. On May 2, 2017, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 285,70,000 to Defendant B, KRW 278,950,000 to Defendant C, and KRW 282,150,000 to Defendant D.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence A 1, Evidence A 2, Evidence A 3-1, 5, 7, and Evidence A 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the defendants' defense prior to the merits

A. The Defendants asserted that, since the compensation for losses was not completed, the Plaintiff has no standing to be a party due to the lack of the right to request a extradition.

In the performance suit, such as the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff asserts that there exists such claim, and thus, the Plaintiff is eligible to be a party, and the Defendants’ assertion constitutes a defense as to the merits, and thus, further determination is based on the following.

The above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

B. The Defendants, even though F is reappointed after the expiration of the term of office due to the Plaintiff’s election as the president of the Plaintiff’s association, have the establishment authorization from the head of Dong.