A. Defendant B shall provide the real estate listed in paragraph 1 of the attached list, and Defendant D shall provide the attached list No. 9.

A. During Ansan-si, the Plaintiff is an association that has obtained authorization for the establishment of a housing redevelopment project on February 21, 2012 under 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 on the housing scale of 116,66.10 square meters in Ansan-si, and obtained authorization for the implementation of a housing redevelopment project on January 15, 2016 (hereinafter “instant redevelopment project”), and obtained authorization for the implementation of a housing redevelopment project on February 27, 2017, and was publicly notified of the management and disposal plan on the same day.

B. The Defendants possess each of the real estate stated in the text within the instant redevelopment project zone.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The main text of Article 49(6) of the Urban Improvement Act provides, “When the authorization of a management and disposition plan is publicly announced, a 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 of the public announcement of transfer under Article 86.” Thus, when the public announcement of a management and disposition plan is made, 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 announcement of the authorization of the management

B. Defendant B’s assertion and determination by the Defendants were not paid the business compensation amount by the Plaintiff, and the Gyeonggi-do Local Land Tribunal stated the amount of compensation for the Defendant’s losses as stated in the adjudication of expropriation rendered on April 9, 2018, and the Plaintiff’s claim.