A. Defendant B is a person who is a party to the case where he is a party to the case where he is a party to the case where he is a party to the case.

A. On March 20, 2009, the Plaintiff obtained authorization from the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul office to establish an association under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “instant association”) with the size of 87,783 square meters as the project implementation district, and is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association, the establishment of which has been approved on January 7, 2016.

B. Defendant B and C are some of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, and Defendant D is the occupation user of the first floor among the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2, and each of the said real estate is located in the project implementation district above.

C. The head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government announced the Plaintiff’s project implementation authorization on January 10, 2013, and announced it on January 17, 2013. On November 26, 2015, the head of Seongbuk-gu published the project implementation authorization, and approved the management and disposition plan on September 12, 2016 (hereinafter “instant management and disposition plan”), and announced it on September 19, 2016.

On the other hand, on January 20, 2017, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal adjudicated the Defendants on the business loss compensation, etc., and on March 7, 2017, the Plaintiff deposited each business loss compensation under the above adjudication with the Defendants as each of the deposit parties.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3-1, 2, 4, 5-2, 3, 6, 7, 8-1, 2, and 3-3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. When the public notice of the management and disposal plan stipulated in Article 49(3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents is given to the cause of the claim, the use and profit-making of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leaseer, etc. of the previous land or buildings, shall be suspended pursuant to Article 49(6) of the same Act, and the project implementer may use and profit from the former land or buildings (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da22094, Dec. 22, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010).