A. Defendant B indicated in the attached Form No. 4, 5, 8, 9, 4-4 among the first floor of the real estate moving to the real estate indicated in the attached Table No. 1.

A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and improvement project association approved by the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on April 27, 2010 in order to remove old and inferior structures, etc. in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government J Group and reconstruct multi-family housing and ancillary welfare facilities.

B. Under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), the Plaintiff was authorized to implement the housing reconstruction project in the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and 271 lots (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”) by the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Office, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”), and was subject to the approval of the management and disposal plan on March 22, 2016, and was publicly notified on March 24

C. The Defendants leased and possessed each corresponding part of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet located in the Plaintiff’s improvement zone.

[Ground of recognition] Defendants B, C, D, and E: Defendants F, and G: the absence of dispute, each entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to Article 49(6) of the Act on the Determination of Grounds for Claims, when a public notice of approval of a management and disposal plan is given in an urban rearrangement project, a right holder, such as the owner, lessee, etc. of the previous land or structure, may not use or profit from the land or structure, and the project implementer may use or profit from the land or structure. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are obligated to deliver each of the corresponding parts

3. Determination on Defendant F and G’s assertion

A. Unlike redevelopment projects, the main text of Article 38 and Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for the Defendants’ assertion on the unconstitutionality of relevant laws and regulations permits the project implementer to accept the right of lease, which is not actually compensated, thereby violating Article 23(1) and (3) of the Constitution on the Guarantee of Property Rights

In addition, Article 38 of the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas for Public Works.