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

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

3.Paragraph 1.

1. In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 8 and 11 through 15 (including each number), the plaintiff was authorized by the management and disposal plan pursuant to Article 49 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter "Urban Improvement Act"), and the above authorized management and disposal plan shall be the same month.

7. The facts notified. The defendant is the owner of the building attached to the building located within the redevelopment improvement project zone (hereinafter referred to as the "building of this case"). The defendant is an object of cash liquidation who has not filed an application for parcelling-out, and the plaintiff filed an application for adjudication of expropriation with the local land expropriation committee of Busan Metropolitan City, which would not reach an agreement on the compensation for the building of this case with the defendant. The above committee made an adjudication of expropriation on March 16, 2015 on May 8, 2015 by taking the compensation for losses and the date of expropriation as the date of expropriation. The plaintiff can be recognized on May 1, 2015 that the defendant deposited the total amount of the compensation for losses with the defendant as a depositee.

According to Article 49 (6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas, when the approval of a management and disposal plan is publicly announced, a right holder, such as the owner, superficies, a person having a right to lease on a deposit basis, and a lessee, etc. of the previous land or building, may not use or profit from the previous land or building, and a project implementer may use or profit from it. According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff completed the compensation for losses due to the expropriation ruling after the approval and public announcement

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The summary of the defendant's argument (1) The plaintiff changed the business action plan which was first authorized but did not go through the procedure such as the consent of the union members.