1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B delivers the building indicated in the attachment No. 1;

B. Defendant C shall be in attached Form 1.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a cooperative established pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) for the implementation of the redevelopment project, and the building indicated in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant building”) belongs to the rearrangement zone.

B. On October 16, 2017, the Changwon market approved and publicly notified the Plaintiff’s management and disposal plan pursuant to Article 78 of the Urban Improvement Act.

C. Defendant B is the owner of the instant building, and is subject to cash liquidation who did not file an application for parcelling-out within the period for application for parcelling-out, and Defendant C connects each point of the attached Form 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 1 among the instant buildings in sequence.

Some of them claim the right of lease against about 69 square meters and possess and use the relevant part.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Where the competent administrative agency has publicly announced an approval plan for the management and disposal of the building of this case, the owner, superficies, leaseer, etc. of the previous land or building cannot use or benefit from the land or building until the date of public announcement of transfer under Article 86 of the Urban Improvement Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Da62561, Jul. 24, 2014; 201Da62578, Jul. 24, 2014). Therefore, with respect to the Plaintiff who acquired the right to use or benefit from the building of this case as the project implementer, the Defendant B, the owner of the building of this case, transferred the building of this case, and the Defendant C, the lessee, is obligated to leave the part in possession or use.

3. As to the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants asserted to the effect that they could not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim, on the grounds that they were less appraised, but they dispute the amount of compensation due to a lawsuit seeking an objection and an increase or decrease in compensation, etc. in the event that the amount of compensation is low.