1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a redevelopment and consolidation project association whose business area covers the area of 232,885 square meters in Busan Dong-gu, Busan, Dong-gu, and completed the registration of incorporation on April 28, 2006 with authorization from Dong-gu, the competent authority, on April 28, 2006.

B. After obtaining authorization for the implementation of the project on May 13, 2010 from the Dong-gu Office, the Plaintiff received the authorization for the implementation of the project on July 20, 2015, and on July 29, 2015, the above management and disposal plan was approved and publicly notified.

C. Meanwhile, on March 13, 2015, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with D and the building indicated in attached Table No. 1 located in the redevelopment project zone with respect to the building located in the redevelopment project zone, with a lease deposit of KRW 30 million and KRW 1 million per month, and thereafter occupies the said building.

Attached Form

Buildings mentioned in paragraph 2 of the list are possessed by D.

[Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument

2. Under Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), in the instant case where the Plaintiff seeks against the Defendant the delivery of each building listed in the separate sheet against the Defendant, the Defendant did not complete compensation for losses. Since there was no relevant statute that recognizes the Plaintiff’s right to claim delivery, the Plaintiff, who is the project implementer, did not acquire ownership, and thus, the Plaintiff did not have standing to sue and thus

However, in the lawsuit for performance like the lawsuit in this case, the plaintiff is standing to sue to the person who asserts that he is the claimant, and the grounds for the defendant's argument are matters to be determined within the merits, and therefore the defendant's defense

3. The plaintiff, as a result of the public notice of approval of the management and disposition plan, lost the right to use and benefit from the occupied portion, and the plaintiff acquired the right to use and benefit from each building listed in the separate sheet, so the defendant is listed in the separate sheet in accordance with Article 49 (6) of the Urban Improvement Act.