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

A. Under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), the Plaintiff obtained authorization for the establishment of a housing reconstruction project on June 12, 2003 from the head of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government for the purpose of implementing a housing reconstruction project (hereinafter “instant project”) with respect to 150 buildings on the ground of 405,782.40 square meters of land outside Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu and 6 lots pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”). On April 208, the Plaintiff was granted authorization for the implementation of the project from the head of Songpa-gu under Article 28 of the Urban Improvement Act; the authorization for the implementation of the project on December 26, 2013; the authorization for the implementation of the project was obtained on January 27, 2015; and the head of Songpa-gu publicly notified the management and disposal plan under Article 49(3) of the Urban Improvement Act.

B. The Defendants and the designated parties are owners who completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet of real estate in the instant project site (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute or do not clearly dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The above Defendants asserted that the above Defendants are non-members and therefore their claims against the above Defendants should be dismissed. However, in a lawsuit for performance, the Plaintiff’s standing to be a party itself is replaced by the judgment as to the propriety of the claims, and such judgment is added to the judgment as to the validity of the claims, so the claimant for his claim for performance is a legitimate plaintiff and the obligor are the defendants (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da44387, 44394, Oct. 7, 2005). Thus, the above Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. Since the management and disposal plan was publicly announced on January 29, 2015 regarding the Plaintiff’s assertion of the instant project, the Defendants and the designated parties are subject to Article 49(6) of the Urban Improvement Act.