1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Determination on this safety defense

A. The owner of the instant real estate in summary of the instant safety defense is C.

The lawsuit for the request for extradition of this case filed against the defendant who is not the owner of the real estate of this case is unlawful as a lawsuit filed against the non-party standing.

B. In a lawsuit for performance of judgment, a person who asserts that he/she has the right to standing to sue, and the person who has asserted as the person responsible for performance has the standing to sue.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da14797 delivered on June 14, 1994). A lawsuit seeking delivery of a building is a lawsuit against a possessor of the building, and insofar as the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant possessed the instant real estate in the cause of the claim, the Defendant has the standing to be the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's defense of the above principal safety is without merit.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In fact, the Plaintiff is the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Project”) which obtained authorization to establish an association from the Guri City on August 10, 2007 in order to implement a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”) with a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project district of 31,650 square meters in Guri-si, Guri-si.

The Plaintiff was authorized to establish an association on August 10, 2007 from the Guri market; the authorization to implement the project on February 11, 2008; and the authorization to implement the management and disposal plan on November 3, 2015, respectively.

On November 3, 2015, the management and disposal plan was publicly announced E.

The defendant occupies the building in the attached list in the project implementation district (hereinafter referred to as the "building in this case") and is also the owner of the building site in this case.

The defendant is a person eligible for cash settlement because he/she fails to apply for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out under the management and disposal plan.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

(b) judgment cities; and