1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B delivers a building listed in the separate sheet;

B. Defendant C is the above building.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an association established to implement a housing redevelopment improvement project for the area of 91,318.2 square meters in Geumcheon-gu, Busan pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”). On May 26, 2009, the Plaintiff obtained approval for the establishment from the head of the Si/Gu in Busan, which was approved on May 26, 2009, and obtained approval for the establishment on August 1, 2012, and was publicly notified of the management and disposal plan on August 23, 2013, and on the same day.

B. Defendant B is the owner of the building indicated in the attached list located in the above improvement zone (hereinafter “instant building”), and Defendant C leased and occupied the instant building from Defendant B.

C. The Plaintiff filed an application for expropriation with the Regional Land Expropriation Committee in Busan Metropolitan City, which did not reach an agreement on purchase of the instant building between Defendant B and the person subject to cash settlement who did not apply for parcelling-out.

On July 14, 2014, on September 11, 2014, the committee rendered a ruling to expropriate the instant building on the date of expropriation as of September 11, 2014.

On September 4, 2014, the Plaintiff deposited the full amount of compensation under the above expropriation ruling.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, since after the authorization and announcement of the above management and disposal plan was completed, the plaintiff deposited compensation for losses pursuant to the above expropriation ruling and completed compensation for losses under the proviso of Article 49 (6) of the Urban Improvement Act, the plaintiff who acquired the right to use and benefit from the land as the project implementer, the defendant Eul transferred the building in this case to the plaintiff, and the defendant C is obligated to withdraw from the building

B. As to Defendant B’s assertion, the above Defendant asserted to the effect that he cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim before the reasonable compensation for loss is completed. (2) Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents.