1. The defendant shall deliver the building as stated in the attached Form to the plaintiff.

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

3.Paragraph 1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff was a housing redevelopment association established to implement a housing redevelopment project under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents in Busan-gu, Busan-gu, which was approved by the head of Busan-gu, Busan-do, and the foregoing fact was publicly notified on April 19, 2017.

B. The defendant is the owner of the building indicated in Paragraph 1 of the order located within the above housing redevelopment project site (hereinafter referred to as "the building in this case"), and did not apply for parcelling-out to the plaintiff within the period of application for parcelling-out.

C. On June 4, 2018, the Plaintiff was adjudicated to expropriate the instant building, etc. by the Regional Land Tribunal of Busan Metropolitan City (the date of commencement of expropriation: July 25, 2018). On July 19, 2018, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 294,831,130 according to the above adjudication in the future of the Defendant.

[Ground for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-5

2. When the determination of the cause of the claim and the public notice of approval of the management and disposal plan under Article 49(3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents is given, the use and profit-making by the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, leasee, etc. of the previous land or buildings shall be suspended pursuant to Article 49(6) of the same Act, and the project implementer may use and profit from the former land or buildings (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). Thus,

3. The defendant's assertion argues that there is no obligation to deliver the building before receiving the compensation for expropriation of the building of this case, but the fact that the plaintiff deposited the compensation for expropriation is as seen earlier, so the defendant's assertion is without merit.

4. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and accepted.