2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. In order to remove the worn-out building (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in a conventional market located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and build a new main complex building, the Defendant obtained authorization for the establishment of the mayor reconstruction association from the Yangcheon-gu Office on January 10, 200, and obtained authorization for the establishment of the mayor reconstruction association from the head of Yangcheon-gu Office on January 26, 2006 from the head of Yangcheon-gu under Article 22 of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on the Promotion of Traditional Markets and Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Article 16(2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents.

B. The plaintiffs are one owner of the real estate listed below among the real estate in this case. On August 30, 2008, the defendant decided to exclude the plaintiffs from objects of sale through the general meeting of partners and include them as objects of cash settlement. Based on this, on October 8, 2008, the defendant applied for authorization of the management and disposal plan to the head of Yangcheon-gu on the basis of the application. < Amended by Act No. 9103, Dec. 18, 2008>

C. The market price of each of the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiffs is as follows as of December 18, 2008, which was the date of the approval of the management and disposal plan on August 30, 2008.

Plaintiff 13,198,400 67, 235, 244.2, 253, 294, 2363, 249, 247, 249, 253, 249, 263, 249, 249, 249, 249, 263, 249, 249, 246, 253, 249, 249, 246, 253, 249, 253, 246, 249, 253, 249, 247, 364, 296, 247, 249, 247, 365, 294, 247, 365, 249, 2539, 247, 294

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3, 12 through 15, Eul 1, appraiser's appraisal result, non-party 1's whole purport of pleading

D. Accordingly, the plaintiffs become subject to cash settlement pursuant to Article 47 subparagraph 3 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents. As such, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs the amount indicated in the "appraisal price" column of the above table (where there is a small amount, referring to the amount indicated in the "small amount"), and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from December 19, 2008 to October 13, 201, which is the date following the date of the administrative disposition disposition plan as of December 30, 2008, which was 150 days after the date of the disposition disposition plan as of December 19, 2008, and from May 18, 2009, which was 150 days after the date of the disposition of this case.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts to the effect that the general meeting of the union members decided on August 30, 2008 did not have the appearance of the management and disposition plan, and the defect is too obvious and invalid, and thus, it cannot claim cash settlement based on the above management and disposition plan. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the fact that the management and disposition plan was issued by the head of Yangcheon-gu Office regarding the above management and disposition plan is serious defect to the extent that the above approval disposition becomes null and void.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

B. The defendant asserts that since the plaintiff 3, 2, 700,000 won and the plaintiff 5 borrowed 33,000,000 won from each defendant as moving expenses and did not repay them, the above amount should be offset against the cash settlement amount.

The facts that Plaintiffs 1, 3, 2, and 5 borrowed a relocation allowance from the Defendant as alleged by the Defendant are not in dispute between the parties, or that the statement of evidence No. 16 can be acknowledged by taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings. However, according to the statement of evidence No. 15, the Defendant can find the fact that the loan claim against the above Plaintiffs in the name of the relocation allowance was transferred to the limited partnership modern construction hosting around June 4, 2010. The Defendant does not have the loan claim against the above Plaintiffs in the name of the relocation allowance, and the above set-off argument is without merit.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

3. Conclusion

Part of the cited Damages (Partial Dismissal of Claim for Delay Damages)

Judge Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Judge)

(1) Although the Defendant alleged that Plaintiff 1 did not sell the real estate owned by himself to Nonparty 3, Nonparty 4, and Nonparty 5, the Defendant should be deemed the owner as long as the ownership on the register remains as Plaintiff 1.

(2) The Plaintiff sought damages for delay from December 19, 2008, which is the day following the date of the approval plan for the management and disposal plan, but Article 47 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents provides that the Plaintiff shall settle in cash within 150 days from the date of exclusion from the object of sale under the management and disposal plan. As such, the initial date of calculating damages for delay shall be May 18, 200