1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant C, respectively, are the buildings listed in the separate sheet No. 1, and the buildings listed in the separate sheet No. 2.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff Union was approved by the head of the Busan Dong-gu government on April 28, 2006 for the establishment of a housing redevelopment project association whose rearrangement project zone covers the Busan Dong-gu D D branch, and the head of the Busan Dong-gu government.

B. In addition, the Plaintiff Union was authorized by the head of the Busan Dong-dong head of the Gu on May 13, 2010, and the management and disposal plan on July 20, 2015, respectively, and the said management and disposal plan authorization was publicly notified on July 29, 2015.

C. Each building listed in the separate sheet is within the implementation zone of the above rearrangement project, and Defendant B occupies each building listed in the separate sheet No. 1 among them, and Defendant C occupies each building listed in the separate sheet No. 2.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 5, purport of whole pleading

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, according to the public notice of approval of the above management and disposal plan, the Plaintiff Union acquired the right to use and benefit from the buildings listed in the attached list within the implementation zone of the rearrangement project, and the Defendants lost their right to use and benefit from the buildings. Thus, the Defendants are obligated to deliver each part of their possession to the Plaintiff.

B. Defendant B’s defense 1) Inasmuch as the Plaintiff Union’s members file a lawsuit against the Plaintiff Union against the Plaintiff Union, authorization for establishment, authorization for project implementation, and authorization for management and disposal plan are dissatisfied with the validity of authorization for establishment, authorization for implementation, and authorization for disposal and disposal plan, Defendant B cannot comply with the Plaintiff Union’s request for extradition, as long as there is no evidence to prove that the authorization for management and disposal plan was unlawful, and thus, Defendant B cannot refuse the Plaintiff’s request for extradition solely on the grounds alleged by Defendant B, as the above authorization was invalidated as of the date of closing argument in this case, and thus, Defendant B’s assertion cannot be accepted.