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, as the owner of the instant building, occupies and uses the instant building.

[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 the determination of the cause of the claim publicly notifies the approval plan for the management and disposal plan, the owner, superficies, leaseer, etc. of the previous land or building cannot use or benefit 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 benefit from the land or building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Da62561, Jul. 24, 2014; 2012Da62561, 62578, etc.). Therefore, the Defendant, as the owner of the instant building, 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. The defendant's assertion is invalid since the management and disposition plan approved by the original market is invalid, the defendant alleged to the effect that he did not have a duty to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff, but there is no evidence to deem the above management and disposition plan invalid [the lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity was dismissed in the first instance court (the original district court 2017Guhap50452) and the appellate court (the Busan High Court 2018Nu1022)], and the above argument by the defendant B cannot be accepted.

In addition, the defendant is subject to the proviso of Article 81 (1) of the Urban Improvement Act.