1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

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

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an association that implements a housing redevelopment improvement project pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the “Urban Improvement Act”), and obtained authorization for the establishment of a housing redevelopment project from the former mayor on May 26, 201. On December 4, 2012, the Plaintiff obtained authorization for the establishment of a housing redevelopment project from the former mayor; on December 4, 2012, the Plaintiff obtained authorization for the implementation of a project consisting of the total area of 73,810 square meters and the total area of 455 square meters and the project implementation plan was approved from the former mayor on December

The former Mayor announced the approval of the management and disposal plan on the same day.

B. Around January 31, 2013, the Plaintiff publicly announced the application for parcelling-out to the members of housing redevelopment project association as indicated in the above paragraph (a), and the Defendant did not apply for parcelling-out as the owner of each real estate listed in the attached Table in the project implementation district as indicated in the above paragraph (a) (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”).

C. On February 28, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication of expropriation of each of the instant real estate, and on February 28, 2017, the Special Self-Governing Province Regional Land Expropriation Committee rendered a ruling of expropriation with “the starting date of expropriation April 24, 2017.”

On March 31, 2017, the day before the date of the above expropriation, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 722,479,020 in the sum of “land compensation KRW 220,335,00 and KRW 502,14,020 in buildings and moving expenses,” which was determined by the above expropriation ruling, on March 31, 2017, with the Defendant as a depositee.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 10 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

(a) Article 47 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas (1) for a person who fails to apply for parcelling-out, a person who has withdrawn the application for parcelling-out before the period for application for parcelling-out expires, or a person who is excluded from the object of parcelling-out in accordance with a management and disposal plan approved under Article 48, the following day from the date following the date of obtaining approval