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 Plaintiff is an organization established to implement a housing redevelopment improvement project for the area of its unit, including buildings listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”). On July 20, 2015, the Plaintiff obtained authorization of a management and disposition plan for the said housing redevelopment improvement project from the head of Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City Office, and the said authorization was publicly notified on July 29, 2015.

B. The defendant is the owner of the building of this case who has not filed an application for parcelling-out within the period for application for parcelling-out.

C. The Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication of expropriation with the Busan Metropolitan City Regional Land Expropriation Committee, which did not hold a consultation with the Defendant on compensation. On February 20, 2017, the said Expropriation Committee accepted the instant building, etc., and made a ruling that the Defendant’s compensation for losses (=land KRW 227,520,520,150) should be KRW 77,614,910, and the date of commencement of expropriation shall be May 4, 2017.

On March 24, 2017, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 305,135,060 as the Busan District Court gold No. 1948 in 2017 with the deposited person as the defendant.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In this case where the plaintiff sought to transfer the building of this case against the defendant, the defendant asserts to the purport that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful since C, a representative of the plaintiff, did not obtain an authorization to change the establishment of the association to obtain authorization to the status of the head of the association from the competent authority even though C is reappointed after the expiration of the term of office of the head of the association.

However, even according to the defendant's argument, since C is reappointed the position of the president of the partnership, it is difficult to view that the authorized matters related to the establishment of the partnership have changed.

It is difficult to accept the Defendant’s defense of this safety.

3. According to Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), the approval of the management and disposal plan is granted.