A. Defendant B: The real estate listed in the Appendix No. 7;

B. Defendant C shall be listed in the attached Table 9.

A. On September 4, 2008, the Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association that obtained authorization for establishment of a project zone with the size of 53,149.50 square meters in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as the project zone.

B. The head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government announced the project implementation authorization on November 5, 2009 with respect to the Plaintiff, the head of Dongdaemun-gu publicly announced the project implementation authorization on August 20, 2015, and publicly announced the project implementation authorization on September 29, 2017, and announced the management and disposal plan on October 12, 2017.

C. The Defendants are tenants who occupy each real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the above project zone as their residence.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. When a public announcement of an administrative disposition plan prescribed by the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents is made to determine the cause of the claim, the use and profit-making by the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leaseer, etc. of the previous land or building, shall be suspended, and the project implementer may use and profit from the former land or building (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da22094, Dec. 22, 192; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). Therefore, the Plaintiff who acquired the right to use and profit-making in accordance with the public notice of

B. The Defendants’ assertion (i) Defendant C alleged that the Plaintiff could not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not pay relocation expenses, etc. However, the right to claim compensation, such as relocation expenses, is a right under public law, which has the nature of money paid on the social security level for the tenants of residential buildings, and is in a preferential performance relationship rather than the duty

Inasmuch as it cannot be seen as having a simultaneous performance relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da8129, May 29, 2008; Supreme Court Decision 2013Da40643, May 29, 2008); Defendant C’s above assertion is without merit.

Shed Defendant D is the prior consultative body by the president of the Plaintiff Union at least three times prior to the management and disposal plan.