The Plaintiff

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

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 29, 2005, the Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment project partnership that obtained approval 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. In the project zone of the above rearrangement project, Defendant B owns buildings listed in the separate sheet No. 1, Defendant C owns buildings listed in the separate sheet No. 2, and Defendant D owns buildings listed in the separate sheet No. 3.

On the other hand, on October 28, 2019, with respect to the above improvement project, the expropriation ruling was made on December 23, 2019 with the commencement date of expropriation as of 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, Gap's statements, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7 through 9, 11 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), 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 B’s assertion of non-business compensation is that Defendant B operated an automobile industry technician in the name of wife F on the first floor of the building listed in the attached Table 1 list, and Defendant D operated phrases in the name of wife G on the first floor of the building listed in the attached Table 3 list. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff could not respond to the Plaintiff’s request for extradition because he did not provide business compensation for the said car industry company and phrases points. However, the part for which the Plaintiff sought to deliver to the said Defendants in the instant lawsuit is the remainder for which compensation was paid except for the car industry company and phrases.