1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the building indicated in the attached list.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

1. The facts that there is no dispute between the parties to the determination on the cause of the claim, the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings, under the overall purport of the pleadings, ① The plaintiff is an association implementing a housing redevelopment and improvement project pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the "Urban Improvement Act"), which was approved by the head of the Nam-gu Busan Metropolitan Government on May 10, 2010 and announced on April 19 of the same month. The revised management and disposal plan was approved on April 4, 2013, and announced on April 10, 2013. ② The defendant was the owner of real estate listed in the annexed list in the above improvement project zone, who was a cash liquidation agent who did not apply for the application for the sale within the period of application for the sale in lots, ③ the plaintiff applied for the expropriation ruling with the defendant on the attached list No. 1373, Oct. 13, 2014.

2. The Defendant’s assertion is insufficient to recognize that the appraisal conducted in the process of the instant expropriation ruling should be appraised as of August 2007, 207, although the date of authorization for the implementation of the project, and as the appraisal conducted in the process of the instant expropriation ruling should be made based on the value of the actual building was unfairly low, so long as the Plaintiff’s assertion is deemed unfair, so long as the compensation for loss is not made without reasonable compensation, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the appraisal result is unreasonable.