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. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 29, 2012, the Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment project partnership that has obtained approval from the head of the Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City, Busan Metropolitan City, for the establishment of a project under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

B. The head of the Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan Government authorized the Plaintiff to implement the management and disposal plan on July 5, 2018 after the project implementation authorization was granted, and publicly notified on July 11, 2018.

C. E, the owner of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) shall consent to the establishment of an association on August 30, 2017, and become the Plaintiff’s partner by filing an application for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out set by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant leased the instant real estate from E and possessed the instant real estate.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-9, Gap evidence 3-8, Gap evidence 5-7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The main sentence of Article 81(1) of the Act on the Determination of Grounds for Claim provides that a right holder, such as a lessee, shall not use the previous land or structure or benefit therefrom when the approval of the management and disposal plan is publicly notified.

According to the above regulations and facts, since the defendant lost the right to use and benefit from the real estate of this case in accordance with the notice of the management and disposal plan for the above rearrangement project, the defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to

As above, insofar as the Plaintiff’s selective claim is accepted for extradition request under the Urban Improvement Act, it does not separately determine the Plaintiff’s selective claim grounds (the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation terminate a lease agreement with the Defendant in subrogation of E, who is a member of the association, and exercise the right

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.