1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B: (a) the buildings listed in paragraph 1 of the attached list;

B. Defendant C shall set out in attached list 2.

1. Basic facts

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. The Plaintiff Union obtained authorization for the implementation of the project on May 13, 2010 from the head of Busan Dong-dong, and the authorization of the management and disposal plan on July 20, 2015, respectively, and the said authorization was publicly notified on July 29, 2015.

C. The buildings listed in the attached list are located within the implementation zone of the above rearrangement project; Defendant B occupies the buildings listed in the attached list No. 1; and Defendant C occupies the buildings listed in the attached list No. 2.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

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. As such, the Defendants are obliged to deliver each possession of the Plaintiff Union to the Plaintiff Union.

B. Determination 1 on Defendant C’s assertion is in progress by the members of the Plaintiff Union while filing a lawsuit to nullify the authorization of establishment, the approval of a project implementation plan, and the approval of a management and disposal plan. Thus, if it is confirmed that the redevelopment project was unlawful according to the results of the above case, the instant claim is groundless. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above approval of a management and disposal plan was invalid due to the significant and apparent defect, or that it was invalidated due to the cancellation judgment in the administrative litigation, etc., the above assertion by Defendant C is without merit. In addition, Defendant C is paid the lease deposit for the building indicated in the separate sheet and the building repair cost and relocation expenses agreed upon at the time of the lease