Defendant B’s buildings indicated in the separate sheet,

B. Defendant C shall have a floor of 58.08 square meters among the buildings listed in the attached list, respectively.

3. Defendant B: (a) comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 7, the Plaintiff is acknowledged as a member of the Plaintiff’s association, which owns real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) within the redevelopment project zone as a housing redevelopment project partnership established to implement a housing redevelopment improvement project in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, with the authorization to establish the association on March 19, 2009; (b) the authorization to implement the project on June 5, 2014; and (c) the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government upon receiving the authorization to implement the project on December 24, 2015.

The main text of Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) provides that “When the authorization of a management and disposition plan is publicly announced, the owner, superficies, leaseer, etc. of the previous land or building shall not use or profit from the previous land or building by the date of the public announcement of relocation under Article 54.” Thus, the fact that the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government approving and publicly notified the management and disposition plan on December 24, 2015 is as seen earlier, the Defendant B, the owner of housing located within the zone where the improvement project in this case is implemented, is obligated to deliver the real estate in this case to the Plaintiff,

Defendant B’s appraisal of the instant real estate was set at an unreasonably low level and based on the illegal appraisal by the Seoul Administrative Court No. 2016Guhap5713.