1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B delivers a building listed in the separate sheet;

B. Defendant C is a building listed in the attached list.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an association established to implement a housing redevelopment improvement project (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”) with the Busan Seo-gu D branch as a project implementation district.

B. On March 18, 2015, the Plaintiff obtained authorization from the head of Busan Seo-gu on the management and disposal plan concerning the instant improvement project pursuant to Article 49(2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), and the head of the Busan Seo-gu announced the said authorization pursuant to Article 49(3) of the Urban Improvement Act on March 25, 2015.

On February 26, 2016, the Plaintiff was authorized to revise the management and disposal plan, and the head of the Busan Seo-gu announced it on March 2, 2016.

C. Defendant B is the owner of the building indicated in the attached list within the instant improvement project zone (hereinafter “instant building”), who has become a cash liquidation since he/she failed to apply for parcelling-out to the Plaintiff within the period of application for parcelling-out.

Defendant C leased and resides in the first floor of the instant building.

On June 20, 2016, the Plaintiff deposited the amount of compensation KRW 516,671,700 as the Busan District Court No. 6344 on July 28, 2016, on the ground that Defendant B refused to receive the compensation under the above expropriation ruling by the local Land Tribunal of Busan Metropolitan City (the date of commencement of expropriation) on June 20, 2016, on July 28, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, on March 2, 2016, the Defendants lost their right to use and profit from the instant building and acquired the Plaintiff’s right to use and profit from the instant building, for which the approval of the modification of the above management and disposal plan was publicly announced under the Urban Improvement Act, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, and Defendant C, a resident, to leave from the first floor of the instant building.

B. Defendant B did not reflect the management plan of the Plaintiff’s management and disposal plan as illegal and modified in the application procedure for parcelling-out.