(a) Defendant B and C are buildings listed in Section 3 of the attached Table 1;

B. Defendant D shall set forth in Appendix 1 List 5.

A. The Plaintiff is a reconstruction maintenance project association established with the size of 48,323 square meters in Seoul Special Metropolitan Gwangjin-gu, Seoul as its business area, which has completed the registration of establishment on March 3, 2009 with the authorization from the head of Gwangjin-gu, the competent authority. Defendant B and C are the lessees of the building portion listed in the attached Table 1 List 3, Defendant D is the lessee of the building portion listed in the attached Table 1 List 5, and Defendant E is the lessee of the building portion listed in the attached Table 2 List 2.

B. The Plaintiff obtained authorization for the implementation of the reconstruction improvement project from the head of Gwangjin-gu, the competent authority (the date of public notice of authorization is August 1, 201), and obtained authorization of the management and disposal plan on May 8, 2014, and the said management and disposal plan was approved and publicly notified on May 15, 2014.

[Grounds for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings (Defendant E shall be deemed as confessions)

2. Determination

A. Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents provides that “When the authorization of a management and disposition plan is publicly announced, any right holder, such as the owner of the previous land or building, shall not use or benefit from the previous land or building until the date of the public announcement of relocation.” According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Defendants, who are lessees of the building within the reconstruction improvement zone, cannot use or benefit from the building within the reconstruction improvement zone from May 15, 2014. Thus, the Defendants are obligated to order the Plaintiff to order each of the instant buildings.

B. In determining the assertion by Defendant B, C, and D, the Defendants asserted that even if the lease deposit is paid, it cannot be transferred until the business loss compensation and relocation expenses are separately paid. Therefore, even when the approval of the management and disposal plan was publicly notified, the Defendants cannot use and profit from the building located within the reconstruction project zone, and the Defendants, who are lessees within the reconstruction project zone, demand the Plaintiff association to pay the business loss compensation and relocation expenses.