1. The Defendants shall deliver each building listed in the separate sheet No. 1 to the Plaintiff.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a redevelopment and consolidation project association whose business area covers 232,885 square meters, Dong-gu, Busan Metropolitan City E, and completed the registration of incorporation on April 28, 2006 with authorization from Dong-gu Office, the competent authority, on April 28, 2006.

B. After obtaining authorization for the implementation of the project on May 13, 2010 from the Dong-gu Office, the Plaintiff received the authorization for the implementation of the project on July 20, 2015, and on July 29, 2015, the above management and disposal plan was approved and publicly notified.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendants, etc., the heir of the networkF, are the owners of buildings listed in the attached Table 1 list located within the redevelopment project zone (hereinafter “instant buildings”), who have not filed an application for parcelling-out within the period for application for parcelling-out. D.

The Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication of expropriation with the Busan Metropolitan City Regional Land Expropriation Committee, which did not consult with the Defendants. On February 20, 2017, the said Expropriation Committee accepted the instant building, and the compensation for the heir of the networkF is KRW 148,96,450 (=land KRW 128,620,80), and the compensation for the heir of the networkF is KRW 20,345,650, and the date of commencement of expropriation is May 4, 2017.

E. On May 2, 2017, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 148,966,450 as the Busan District Court No. 3207 with the Defendants, etc. on May 2, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), a right holder, such as the owner of a previous parcel of land or structure, may not use or benefit from a management and disposal plan when the approval of

According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

As to this, Defendant D asserts that since the compensation is low-cost, it cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim.

However, in accordance with Article 40 (1) of the Urban Improvement Act, it is necessary to implement a rearrangement project in an improvement zone.