1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B delivers a building listed in the attached list;

B. Defendant C is from the Plaintiff 1,000.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a cooperative established on May 8, 2009 by obtaining authorization for the establishment from the Busan City Mayor on May 8, 2009 for the A-Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project (hereinafter “instant redevelopment Project”) under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

B. On February 26, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) obtained authorization to implement the instant redevelopment project from the Bupyeong-si mayor; (b) obtained authorization to alter the implementation of the relevant redevelopment project on July 25, 2013; and (c) obtained authorization to implement the relevant management and disposal plan on May 9, 2016; and (d) publicly announced the authorization to implement the relevant redevelopment project on May 16, 2016 in the official gazette.

C. Defendant B is the owner of the building indicated in the separate sheet within the rearrangement zone of the instant redevelopment project (hereinafter “instant building”). On September 30, 2013, Defendant B obtained the status of its partner by filing an application for parcelling-out with the Plaintiff, and occupied the instant building. Defendant C, on March 29, 201, connected each point of (a) part 31.23m2 (hereinafter “instant leased part”) in the separate sheet among the second floor of the instant building from E, the former owner of the instant building, in turn, connected each point of subparagraph 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of the separate sheet among the second floor of the instant building, the lease deposit amount of KRW 5,00,000,000, in the preparatory document as of May 10, 2017, but the lease deposit amount of KRW 100,000,000,000 according to the evidence No. 8 (including the serial number).

set forth and leased as such.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 9, Eul evidence 8 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to Article 49(6) of the Act on the Determination of the Grounds for Claims, when the authorization of a management and disposal plan is publicly announced, a right holder, such as the owner of the previous land or building, may not use or benefit from such authorization, and according to the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation’s statement No. 2, the lessee may claim the return of deposit against the Plaintiff.