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 partnership that has obtained approval from the head of the Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City, Busan Metropolitan City, 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”).

The defendant is the owner of the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as "the real estate of this case"), and the real estate of this case is located in the business area of the above improvement project.

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. The Defendant consented to the establishment of an association on September 25, 2017 and became the Plaintiff’s partner by filing an application for parcelling-out within the period for application for parcelling-out set by the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 4-1, Gap evidence 5-8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The main sentence of Article 81(1) of the Act on the Determination of Grounds for Claim provides that the owner of the previous land or structure shall not use the previous land or structure or benefit therefrom when the approval of the management and disposal plan is publicly notified.

According to the above regulations and facts, since the defendant lost the right to use and benefit from the real estate of this case in accordance with the notice of the management and disposal plan for the above rearrangement project, the defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to

The plaintiff asserts that the request for extradition based on the articles of association of the association is a selective cause for a claim, and as long as the request for extradition based on the Urban Improvement Act is accepted, the plaintiff does not separately determine the remainder of the claims.

3. As to the defendant's assertion, the defendant's appraisal price on the real estate of this case owned by the defendant is unreasonably low in the course of obtaining the approval of the management and disposal plan.