1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate stated in the attached list.

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

3...

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. 1) The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association whose project area covers 103,621.76 square meters of H of Changwon-si, Changwon-si, the Plaintiff was authorized to establish a project, and on April 17, 2008, the real estate listed in the attached list is located within the said project area, and the Defendant is the owner of the said real estate, who occupies and uses it.

3) On December 15, 2015, the Changwon market approved and publicly notified a management and disposition plan against the Plaintiff. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings]

B. According to the main sentence of Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, when a management and disposal plan is authorized and its announcement is made, the owner of the previous land or structure cannot use or benefit from the previous land or structure until the date of the public announcement of relocation under Article 54 of the same Act. As recognized earlier, the public announcement of the approval of the management and disposal plan was made. Therefore, the defendant cannot use or benefit from the real estate listed in the attached

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that the defendant is not obligated to deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiff before receiving the liquidation money under statutes, since he/she has withdrawn the application for parcelling-out to the plaintiff and is not a partner.

B. The defendant revoked the application for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out.

The defendant's assertion that the defendant is in the position of cash clearing is not acceptable, since there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the application for parcelling-out has been legally withdrawn.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and acceptable.