(a) Defendant B: (a) the real estate listed in No. 1 of the annex No. 1;

B. Defendant C shall provide attached real estate.

A. According to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), the Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association aimed at housing redevelopment and rearrangement project with the size of 116,66.10 square meters, which is located in Ansan-si Seoul Metropolitan City, as a project implementation district. Defendant C, D, and E are the owners of each real estate and cash liquidation agents located in the relevant project implementation district, and Defendant B and F occupy the said real estate as respective tenants.

B. On January 15, 2016, the Plaintiff obtained authorization for the change of the project implementation from the Ansan market, and the Ansan market announced the change of the project implementation on the same day. On February 27, 2017, the Plaintiff obtained the approval for the management and disposal plan from the Ansan market, and the Gyeyang market announced the management and disposal plan on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 10 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Article 49(6) main text of the Act on the Determination of Grounds for Claims provides that “When the authorization of a management and disposition plan is publicly announced, any right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, etc. of the previous land or building, shall not use or profit from the previous land or building until the date the transfer is publicly notified under Article 86.” Thus, when the authorization of a management and disposition plan is publicly notified, the use or profit of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, etc. of the previous land or building, shall be suspended, and the project implementer may use or benefit from the former land or building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). Therefore, the Defendants whose use or profit has been suspended pursuant to the public notice of the authorization of the management and disposition plan

B. Defendant C’s assertion is determined by the Plaintiff.