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 head of Busan Metropolitan City on January 11, 2006 designated the Busan Dongdong-gu C as the rearrangement zone.

B. On April 28, 2006, the Plaintiff is an association which registered the establishment of May 2, 2006 after obtaining authorization from the head of Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the “Dong-dong head”) to implement a housing redevelopment project in the above rearrangement zone.

C. The Plaintiff obtained approval from the head of Dong-dong head on May 12, 2010, and obtained approval for the project implementation plan on August 29, 2014, and obtained application for parcelling-out based on the project implementation plan approved for modification as above.

On July 20, 2015, the Plaintiff received the approval of the management and disposal plan from the head of the Dong-dong, and the head of the Dong-dong office publicly notified the details related to the management and disposal plan on July 29, 2015.

E. The defendant did not apply for parcelling-out as the owner of the building indicated in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as the "building of this case"), and the building of this case is within the above improvement zone.

F. On February 20, 2017, the Busan Metropolitan City Regional Land Expropriation Committee rendered a ruling to expropriate the instant building, and on April 26, 2017, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 150 million for the Defendant as compensation for losses as prescribed by the said ruling of expropriation.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant, the owner of the instant building, pursuant to Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), is prohibited from using or earning profit from the instant building, and the Plaintiff is entitled to use or enjoy profit from the instant building as the project implementer, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635 Decided May 27, 2010). B.

The defendant shall complete the compensation for losses arising from the building of this case.