2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3.

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association established to implement a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project with the project implementation district of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 89,853 square meters of land as the Seongbuk-gu project implementation district.

The Plaintiff was authorized by the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to establish an association on April 21, 2009, the authorization to implement the project on April 4, 2013, and the management and disposal plan under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) on December 22, 2014.

The head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly announced the management and disposal plan on December 26, 2014.

B. Defendant B and Defendant C own each share of 1/3 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet in the project implementation district (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

C. The Plaintiff received the application for parcelling-out from June 7, 2013 to August 5, 2013, and the Defendants applied for parcelling-out to the Plaintiff on July 11, 2013 during the period for application for parcelling-out.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 5 evidence (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Article 49(6) of the Act on the Determination of Grounds for Claim provides that “When a management and disposal plan is authorized and such public notice is given, the owner of the previous land or building, lessee, etc. shall not use or benefit from the previous land or building until the date of public notice of relocation under Article 54.”

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants are obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff who acquired the right to use and benefit as the project implementer after the public notice of approval of the management and disposal plan

3. Determination as to the defendants' defense

A. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim is unfair since the authorization to establish the Plaintiff’s association is invalid due to serious defect.

However, the evidence submitted by the Defendants alone is insufficient to recognize that the authorization for the establishment of the Plaintiff is null and void, and otherwise evidence to recognize it.