1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B: (a) the buildings listed in the separate sheet No. 1;

B. Defendant C each has a building listed in the separate sheet No. 2.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The head of Busan Metropolitan City on January 11, 2006 designated the Busan Dongdong-gu D 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. Defendant B is the owner of the building indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, and Defendant C did not apply for parcelling-out as the owner of the building listed in the separate sheet No. 2, and each of the above buildings is within the above rearrangement zone.

F. On February 20, 2017, the Busan Metropolitan City Regional Land Expropriation Committee rendered a ruling to expropriate each of the above buildings, and on April 26, 2017, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 182,005,320 for Defendant B as compensation for losses as prescribed by the above expropriation ruling, and KRW 137,03,330 for Defendant C.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 4-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. Defendant B asserts that the Plaintiff did not have the right to request the delivery of the building listed in the attached Table 1 list, and that the Plaintiff is not a party.

In the performance suit, such as the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff asserts that there exists such claim, and thus, the Plaintiff is eligible to be a party. Therefore, Defendant B’s above assertion is difficult to accept.

B. The Defendants are reappointed after the expiration of their terms of office due to the Plaintiff’s election as the president of the partnership.