1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the building indicated in the attached list.

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

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The head of Busan Metropolitan City on January 11, 2006 designated the Busan Dongdong-gu C as the rearrangement zone.

B. On April 28, 2006, the Plaintiff is an association which registered the establishment of May 2, 2006 after obtaining authorization from the head of Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the “Dong-dong head”) to implement a housing redevelopment project in the above rearrangement zone.

C. The Plaintiff obtained approval from the head of Dong-dong head on May 12, 2010, and obtained approval for the project implementation plan on August 29, 2014, and obtained application for parcelling-out based on the project implementation plan approved for modification as above.

On July 20, 2015, the Plaintiff received the approval of the management and disposal plan from the head of the Dong-dong, and the head of the Dong-dong office publicly notified the details related to the management and disposal plan on July 29, 2015.

E. The defendant did not apply for parcelling-out as the owner of the building indicated in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as the "building of this case"), and the building of this case is within the above improvement zone.

F. On February 20, 2017, Busan Metropolitan City Regional Land Expropriation Committee decided to expropriate the instant building, and on April 26, 2017, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 365,830,070 for the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, since D is not entitled to represent the plaintiff since it did not obtain authorization from the head of the same Gu on the establishment authorization, even though D is reappointed after the term of office has expired since it was elected as the president of the plaintiff's association, and since it did not obtain authorization from the head of the same Gu.

Even according to the defendant's argument, D is still reappointed by being elected as the president of the plaintiff's association, and it is difficult to view that the matters approved in relation to the establishment of the association have changed.