2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff Cooperative is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project partnership with the area located in Busan Dong-dong Ddong as a rearrangement zone. Defendant C is the owner of the land indicated in the attached Table No. 2 (hereinafter “instant land”). Defendant B is the owner of the building listed in the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On July 20, 2015, the head of the Busan East-do government authorized the management and disposal plan of the Plaintiff’s association, and announced it on July 29, 2015.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, barring any special circumstance, Defendant C and Defendant B, the owner of the instant land, lost their right to use and profit from the instant land, and Defendant B, the owner of the instant building, lost their right to use and profit from the Plaintiff’s association. Therefore

B. Since the defendants' defense did not receive compensation for losses, it is a defense to the effect that the plaintiff union cannot comply with the request for extradition. Thus, since the plaintiff union did not complete compensation for losses against the defendants, there is no dispute between the parties. Thus, pursuant to the proviso of Article 49 (6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, the defendants do not lose their right to use and profit until the plaintiff union completes compensation for losses. Thus, the defendants' defense

3. In conclusion, the claim against the Defendants of the Plaintiff Union is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.