The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment project partnership that obtained approval for establishment from the head of Dongdaemun-gu Office on December 3, 2008 pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) for the purpose of implementing a housing redevelopment project with respect to the housing redevelopment project with respect to the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Daily (hereinafter “instant project zone”).

B. The head of Dongdaemun-gu publicly announced the project implementation authorization on October 26, 2017 for the Plaintiff, and approved and publicly announced the management and disposal plan on October 4, 2019.

C. The Defendants occupy each real estate listed in the separate sheet in the instant project zone (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. When a public notice of a management and disposal plan stipulated in the Act on the Determination of the Grounds for Claims is given, the use and profit-making of right holders, such as owners, superficies, persons having chonsegwon, and lessees of the previous land or buildings, shall be suspended, and the project implementer may use and profit from the former land or buildings (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are obligated to deliver each of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff who acquired the right to use and benefit from each of the instant real estate by obtaining authorization and public notice

As to this, Defendant B alleged to the effect that it cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim before receiving the housing relocation cost and director’s expenses from the Plaintiff. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant B is eligible for the housing relocation cost, etc. Moreover, the payment obligation of the residents of the residential building to the residents of the residential building and the obligation of the occupants and users of the residential building to deliver the real estate cannot be recognized. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff.