A. Defendant B: (a) the buildings listed in the separate sheet No. 1;

B. Defendant C shall be the building listed in Appendix 2 List 1.

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association established with a project zone, such as Busan Dong-gu M, Busan Metropolitan City, the head of the Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the “Seoul Metropolitan City”) to authorize the establishment of the association on April 28, 2006, the authorization to implement the project on May 13, 2010, and the authorization to implement the project plan on July 20, 201

On July 29, 2015, the management and disposal plan was publicly announced as N in the Notice of Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City.

B. The Defendants are those who own or possess the relevant building as shown in the separate sheet in the above business area.

[Reasons for Recognition] Defendant E, G, and I: without dispute; entry of Gap evidence 1; the purport of the entire pleadings; the remaining Defendants: The absence of dispute

2. Determination

A. The main text of 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, the owner, superficies, leaseer, etc. of the previous land or buildings shall not use or benefit from the previous land or buildings until the date of public announcement of relocation under Article 54.”

The head of Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City approving the management and disposal plan for the Plaintiff’s housing redevelopment project on July 20, 2015, and the public notice was given on July 29, 2015. Therefore, the Defendants holding and using each of the buildings listed in the separate sheet located within the implementation zone of the instant rearrangement project are obliged to deliver each of the buildings to the Plaintiff, who is the said project implementer, unless there are special circumstances.

B. The main point of the argument of Defendant E, G, and I is the procedure for the appraisal of Defendant E’s building, etc. and its amount.

Although Defendant E raised an objection against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff did not properly implement the consultation procedure under Articles 16 and 26(2) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects.

Therefore, the plaintiff cannot respond to the request.

(b).