A. Defendant B shall submit the attached Form 1 building

B. Defendant C shall submit the attached Form 2 building

C. Defendant D.

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project partnership with approval for establishment of a housing redevelopment and improvement project in the Dong Government-si E 132,479 square meters A with the aim of implementing a housing redevelopment and improvement project, and the Defendants are the Plaintiff’s members.

B. The Plaintiff was authorized to implement the project on March 31, 2015 with respect to the said housing redevelopment improvement project, and was subject to the authorization for the implementation of the project on November 4, 2016.

On November 4, 2016, the Gu government market announced the F-based public notice of the approval plan for the management and disposal plan.

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff received the application for parcelling-out by designating the period of application for parcelling-out from May 28, 2015 to July 26, 2015, which was before the notification of the management and disposal plan, and extended the period from August 14, 2015, but did not designate the period of contract for parcelling-out after the notification of the management and disposal plan.

【Defendant B, C: Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Evidence No. 5-5, and Defendant D: Confession

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Defendants cannot use or profit from the previous land or buildings according to the public notice of the management and disposal plan (Article 81(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents), and are obligated to deliver each building owned by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff.

B. On August 27, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff cannot comply with the claim under Article 81(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, since the Plaintiff passed a resolution on the management and disposal plan without the consent of two-thirds or more of the members required by the proviso of Article 45(4) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents even though the increased project cost exceeds 10% at the general meeting on August 27, 2016.

However, the above resolution of the general meeting is unlawful as the defendant asserts.