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 following facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be admitted with Gap evidence 1 to 8, etc.

Plaintiff

The association is a housing redevelopment project partnership established on December 24, 2014 in order to implement a housing redevelopment project under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) on the area of 68,353 square meters in Nam-gu, Busan Metropolitan City. It is a so-called cash liquidation agent who did not apply for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out implemented by the Plaintiff association as the owner of buildings listed in the attached list within the above zone (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On March 7, 2018, the Plaintiff Union obtained authorization for the modification of the management and disposal plan pursuant to the Urban Improvement Act, which was publicly notified as D/D on March 14, 2018.

C. On December 10, 2018, the Busan Regional Land Tribunal rendered a ruling of expropriation of the instant building on February 7, 2019. Accordingly, on January 28, 2019, the Plaintiff Union paid KRW 168,780,420 for compensation for losses due to the said ruling of expropriation to the head of the Nam-gu Busan Special Metropolitan City, which seized the claim for the charge for compelling compliance with the Defendant’s delinquent amount of KRW 360,231,000 as the preserved right.

The defendant currently occupies the building of this case.

2. According to the above facts, while the Plaintiff Union acquired ownership of the instant building on the date of commencement of the above confinement ruling, the Defendant cannot use or profit from the instant building pursuant to the main sentence of Article 81(1) of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to comply with the Plaintiff Union’s request for delivery of the instant building

In this regard, the defendant alleged that he cannot accept the claim for delivery until he receives the compensation for losses, the resettlement funds, the relocation expenses, and the director's expenses.

However, the fact that the plaintiff union paid compensation for losses is the same as the above, and the business operator's residence is also the same.