2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

A. On February 26, 2009, the Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association that has obtained authorization to establish an association under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) with the size of 153,501 square meters from the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as the project implementation district.

B. Defendant E is the owner of the building listed in the attached Table No. 1 located in the said project implementation district, and Defendant F is the possessor of the building listed in the attached Table No. 2 located in the said project implementation district.

C. The head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly announced the authorization to implement the project on June 20, 2013 with respect to the Plaintiff, and publicly announced the authorization to implement the project on January 22, 2015. On February 24, 2017, the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government approved the management and disposal plan and publicly announced it on March 2, 2017.

On the other hand, on August 25, 2017, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Local Land Tribunal rendered a ruling of expropriation on October 20, 2017 for the plaintiff's improvement project.

On October 18, 2017, the date prior to the date of commencement of expropriation, the Plaintiff deposited the full amount of compensation for losses and late payment due to the above expropriation ruling with Defendant E as a depositee.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 7-1 and 7-2, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Determination

A. When a public notice of a management and disposal plan under Article 49(3) of the Act on the Determination of Grounds for Claim is given, the use and profit-making by right holders, such as owners, superficies, persons having a right to lease, and lessees of the previous land or buildings, shall be suspended pursuant to Article 49(6) of the same Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da22094, Dec. 22, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to deliver each of the pertinent parts to the Plaintiff who acquired the right to use and profit-making in accordance with the public notice of the management and disposal plan of this case as seen earlier.

B. Determination of the Defendants’ assertion