1. 피고는 원고에게 별지 목록 기재 건물의 1층 중 같은 목록 도면 표시 기재 ㉡, ㉢, ㉣, ㉤,...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff Union was approved by the head of the Busan Dong-gu government on April 28, 2006 for the establishment of a housing redevelopment project association whose rearrangement project zone is the Busan Dong-gu C Group, and the head of the Busan Dong-gu government.

B. In addition, the Plaintiff Union was authorized by the head of the Busan Dong-dong head of the Gu on May 13, 2010, and the management and disposal plan on July 20, 2015, respectively, and the said management and disposal plan authorization was publicly notified on July 29, 2015.

C. The building indicated in the attached list is located within the implementation zone of the above rearrangement project, and the defendant occupies the part of the building indicated in paragraph (1) of the disposition (hereinafter “the part of the building of this case”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 7 (including each number, if any) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, the public notice of the approval of the above management and disposal plan obtained the right to use and benefit from the instant building located within the rearrangement project implementation zone pursuant to the main sentence of Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, and the Defendant lost the right to use and benefit from the building.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff union members of the plaintiff union cannot respond to the plaintiff union's request for extradition, as long as the plaintiff union's redevelopment project is scheduled to be illegal, since the plaintiff union's association members are dissatisfied with the validity of the association establishment authorization, project implementation authorization, and management and disposal plan.

As long as there is no evidence to prove that the approval of the above management and disposition plan was invalidated due to invalidation confirmation or cancellation as of the date of closing argument in this case, the plaintiff's request for extradition cannot be rejected solely on the grounds alleged by the defendant. Thus, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

B. In addition, the defendant is the lessee of the building of this case, and the lease deposit is guaranteed.