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 was established for the purpose of implementing a housing redevelopment project (hereinafter “instant project”) in the area of 46,494 square meters in Seo-gu Busan Metropolitan City, Seo-gu, and completed the establishment registration on March 9, 2005 with the approval of establishment from the head of Seo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government on March 2, 2005.

B. On March 3, 2006, the Plaintiff received the authorization from the head of Seo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government from the head of the Gu to implement the project of this case (public notice on March 3, 2006), and on March 23, 2006, issued a public notice of sale to the members, and received the application for parcelling-out.

On November 26, 2007, the Plaintiff held a general meeting to formulate a management and disposal plan for the instant project and resolved on the draft of the management and disposal plan. On February 29, 2007, the Plaintiff obtained approval from the head of the Seo-gu Busan Metropolitan City head of the Gu.

C. A building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) is located in the instant project zone, and the Defendant, as the owner of the instant building, occupies all of the instant building.

Meanwhile, on October 11, 2009, some of the Plaintiff’s members including the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking confirmation of invalidity of the management and disposition plan (U.S. District Court 2009Guhap5443), and on July 15, 2010, the Busan District Court rendered a judgment to the effect that “the instant management and disposition plan was established on the basis of the application procedure that was made without notifying the union members of the general details of the charges.”

On this issue, the plaintiff and the defendant appealed (the Busan High Court 2010Nu3749).

E. On September 17, 2010, the Plaintiff held an extraordinary general meeting on September 17, 2010 during the appellate trial, and notified the Plaintiff’s members of the documents (the assessed value of the previous asset and the notice for application for parcelling-out according to the first instance judgment) accompanied by “the details of the assessed value and estimated charges of the members,” while giving new guidance on and announcement of application for parcelling-out to the Plaintiff’s members on September 29, 2010.

2.3