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

3...

A. The Plaintiff is an association established for a housing redevelopment improvement project with the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 105,629m2 as the project implementation district, which was approved by the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on June 25, 2009.

B. On October 23, 2012, the Plaintiff received project implementation authorization from the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and was authorized to implement a management and disposition plan on April 24, 2014 pursuant to Article 49(2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”). The head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government announced the management and disposition plan on the same day

C. The Defendants are co-owners of buildings listed in the separate sheet located in the project implementation district (hereinafter “instant building”) and are members possessing and using the said building.

[Grounds for recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry of Gap's No. 1 and No. 7 (including virtual numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. When the approval of the management and disposal plan is announced, the owner, superficies, leaseer, etc. of the previous land or structure cannot use or profit from the previous land or structure until the date of the public announcement of relocation under Article 54 of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents). According to the above facts, the defendants occupy the building of this case located within the project implementation district, and the defendants are obliged to deliver

B. The Defendants asserted to the effect that the instant project implementation authorization or management and disposal plan is null and void, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and thus, they do not accept the Defendants’ above assertion.

C. In addition, the defendants filed an application for parcelling-out by deceit on the part of the plaintiff, but the appraised value is not appropriate, and thus withdrawn the parcelling-out, and have failed to receive the adequate level of compensation for expropriation thereafter.