(a) Defendant B delivers a building listed in paragraph 1 of the attached list;

B. Defendant C shall list attached hereto.

A. The Plaintiff is the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association that obtained authorization to establish a housing redevelopment project on May 29, 2012 in order to implement a housing redevelopment project with respect to the area of 185,269.3 square meters in Ansan-si, Ansan-si.

B. The Plaintiff received authorization to implement the project on June 2, 2015 from the Ansan market, and obtained the authorization to implement the project on April 22, 2016, and was publicly notified on the same date as the authorization to implement the project.

C. Defendant B is the owner of the building indicated in the attached list No. 1 located in the instant project zone, and Defendant C is the owner of the building listed in the attached list No. 2 as the owner of the building indicated in the attached list No. 2, but did not apply for parcelling-out during the

The Plaintiff deposited KRW 184,350,310, and KRW 1,016,251,50 for Defendant C on July 17, 2017 according to the Gyeonggi-do Local Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on June 12, 2017, and KRW 1,016,251,50 for losses to Defendant C on June 20, 2017.

(No. 1459, 1900. [Grounds for recognition] No. 1459, 1900. 【No. 1459, 2017.] The facts of no dispute, Gap evidence No. 1 through 12, Eul No. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. When the authorization of a management and disposal plan is publicly notified pursuant to Article 49(3) of the Urban Improvement Act, the use and profit-making of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, persons having a right to lease on the previous land or buildings, and the lessee, etc., shall be suspended pursuant to Article 49(6) of the same Act, and the project implementer shall be able to use and profit from the former land or buildings (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53

According to the above facts, the Defendants, the owners of real estate in the rearrangement zone of this case, are suspended from the right to use and benefit from each building listed in the separate sheet, and the Plaintiff, the implementer of the rearrangement project of this case, acquired the right to use and benefit from each of the above buildings. Accordingly, the Defendants are obliged to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff.

C. Determination on Defendant C’s assertion 1.