1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate stated in the attached list.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 29, 2012, the Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment project association which has obtained approval from the head of the Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City, Busan Metropolitan City, for the establishment of an association under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

B. The head of the Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan Government authorized the Plaintiff to implement the management and disposal plan on July 5, 2018 after the project implementation authorization was granted, and publicly notified on July 11, 2018.

C. As the owner of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”), the Defendant consented to the establishment of an association, and applied for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out set by the Plaintiff, and owned each of the above real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. When a management and disposal plan is approved and publicly notified under the Act on the Determination of Urban Improvement, the owner of the previous land or building shall not use or benefit from the previous land or building, and the project implementer shall be allowed to use or benefit from the former land or building (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da22094, Dec. 22, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 2007Da83649, Jul. 9, 2009). In light of the legal principles, the health unit and the above facts of recognition are obligated to deliver each real estate of this case to the Plaintiff.

(1) The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff did not have an obligation to deliver each of the instant real estate before the above period was set at the Plaintiff’s Assembly’s meeting as of August 27, 2018, and that there was no obligation to deliver each of the instant real estate before the above period. However, in light of the description of the evidence No. 8, it is difficult to view that the period of resettlement was postponed by the above period. Thus, the Defendant’s claim for conclusion on March 2, 2018 is reasonable, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition.