A. The plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and improvement project association established under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the "Urban Improvement Project") to implement the housing reconstruction improvement project (hereinafter referred to as the "maintenance Project in this case") within the Dacheon-si D (hereinafter referred to as the "Adjustment Zone

B. On April 5, 2006, the Plaintiff obtained authorization for the establishment of a project from the astronomical mayor, and obtained authorization for the implementation plan on October 5, 2007, and obtained authorization for the implementation plan on March 15, 2017, and obtained approval for the implementation plan on December 11, 2017, and was publicly notified on December 11, 2017.

C. The Defendants are owners and partners of each corresponding part of the order stated in the instant improvement zone.

On March 27, 2017, the Plaintiff issued a notice for application for parcelling-out to the members for parcelling-out, setting the period from March 30, 2017 to April 28, 2017, and announced the application for parcelling-out on March 28, 2017. The Defendants received the above notice and applied for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out.

【Ground for Recognition】 Each entry of Gap's 1 or 6 (including each number) without dispute

2. According to the main sentence of Article 81(1) of the Act on the Determination of Grounds for Claim, a right holder, such as the owner, lessee, etc. of the previous land or building, cannot use or profit from the previous land or building when the approval of the management and disposal plan under Article 78(3) of the same Act is publicly notified. Thus, according to the above recognition, the Defendants are obligated to deliver each of the buildings indicated in the order to the Plaintiff, the implementer of the instant improvement project

3. The defendant C was notified of the outlined amount of contributions from the plaintiff, but this did not follow the lawful and reasonable method. Thus, it constitutes an error on important matters at the time of application for parcelling-out, and thus, the application for parcelling-out to the plaintiff.