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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an redevelopment and consolidation project association that has obtained authorization to implement a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project in accordance with the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

B. The defendant is the owner of the building indicated in the attached list as an association member who completed the application for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out and occupies the above building.

C. After obtaining authorization for project implementation, the Plaintiff obtained authorization for a management and disposal plan under Article 74 of the Urban Improvement Act (Act No. 14943, which was in force at the time), on December 4, 2017, and the said management and disposal plan was publicly announced as D/D public notification on December 13, 2017 pursuant to Article 78(4) of the Urban Improvement Act.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 to 5 evidence

2. In accordance with the public notice of the management and disposal plan for the cause of the claim, the Defendant was unable to use and profit from the above building under Article 81(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver it to the Plaintiff

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The articles of incorporation of the Defendant’s asserted Plaintiff Union provides that a partner may become a cash clearing agent if the partner fails to conclude a sales contract within the date set by the association after the approval of the management and disposal plan.

Although the defendant expressed his intention to withdraw the application for parcelling-out to the plaintiff and set the period for concluding a contract for parcelling-out, the plaintiff has not yet announced the period for concluding a contract for parcelling-out since the contract for parcelling-out can be completed by the union members and the removal of buildings.

However, if it is allowed to become a cash liquidation agent by setting the period for concluding a contract for the relocation of members and the removal of buildings, the defendant can not appraise the value of the building and can not dispute the compensation through administrative litigation, etc.