1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the building indicating the attached real estate.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a cooperative established pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) for the implementation of the redevelopment project, and the building indicated in the attached property (hereinafter “instant building”) belongs to the rearrangement zone.

B. On October 16, 2017, the Changwon market approved and publicly notified the Plaintiff’s management and disposal plan pursuant to Article 78 of the Urban Improvement Act.

C. The defendant is the owner of the building of this case who has failed to apply for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. In cases where an administrative agency having jurisdiction over determination of the cause of the claim publicly notifies an approval plan for the management and disposal plan, the owner, superficies, leaseer, etc. of the previous land or building cannot use or profit from the land or building until the date of public announcement of transfer under Article 86 of the Urban Improvement Act, and the project implementer is entitled to use or profit from the land or building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Da62561, Jul. 24, 2014; 2012Da62561, 62578, etc.). Therefore, the project implementer is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the Plaintiff who acquired the right to use or benefit from the building of this case as the project implementer.

3. As to the defendant's assertion, the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim until the compensation for losses was paid to the defendant. However, when considering the purport of the whole argument in the statement Nos. 4 and 5 as to the defendant's argument, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case and received the adjudication of expropriation of the building in this case, etc., and deposited KRW 280,652,490 as compensation for losses on April 18, 2019, and completed the payment of compensation for losses to the defendant, the above argument by the defendant cannot be accepted.

In addition, the defendant is against the plaintiff.