A. After obtaining authorization for the establishment of a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association and authorization for the implementation thereof from the former mayor on December 5, 2017, the Plaintiff also obtained authorization for the management and disposal plan around December 5, 2017, and the former mayor publicly announced a management and disposal plan (Public Notice C at the preceding week) at that time. After that, the Plaintiff did not separate the Plaintiff from the Defendant (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Defendant”) and the remaining designated parties from the Seoul Special Self-Governing Province Land Expropriation Committee on D (Death during the period of November 31, 2014), etc., for whom the remaining designated parties are the predecessor, by January 31, 2019, with the expropriation ruling as of January 15, 2019, the Defendant and the remaining designated parties were designated as the deposited parties (i.e., KRW 163,103,450 (=678,850,324,600).

B. According to these factual relations, in relation to the Defendant and the remaining designated parties, the Plaintiff may be deemed to have completed all the compensation procedures under Article 46 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”). Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant and the remaining designated parties are jointly obligated to deliver the said building to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

C. As to this, the defendant asserted that the local land expropriation committee's objection was unlawful, and that the appraisal that did not consider the location conditions of the building of this case and the surrounding market prices was unlawful. Accordingly, the plaintiff union made a deposit as determined by the local land expropriation committee.