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

A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and improvement project association that has obtained authorization for establishing an association (change) pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) on September 26, 2012 for the purpose of promoting a housing reconstruction project of 118,069 square meters of Japan, E 118,069 square meters.

B. Defendants 1, 2, and D are co-owners of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) located in the Plaintiff’s project implementation district, and possess the real estate indicated in the separate sheet, and Defendant 3 also possess the instant real estate.

C. On November 16, 2016, the Plaintiff received an approval for the management and disposal plan from the Si of Overcheon on the same day, and on the same day, the said approval was publicly notified in the Official Gazette.

[Based on the recognition] between the plaintiff and the defendant 2 and the defendant 3: Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5

2. According to the above facts, when a management and disposal plan is authorized and publicly announced pursuant to Article 49(6) of the Urban Improvement Act, a right holder, such as the owner, superficies, a person having a right to lease on a deposit basis, and a lessee, etc. of the previous land or structure, cannot use or profit from the previous land or structure until the date of the public announcement of relocation under Article 54 of the Urban Improvement Act, and the project implementer is entitled to use or profit from the former land or structure (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant real estate possessed by the Plaintiff, the implementer of the instant reconstruction

3. Determination as to Defendant D’s assertion

A. The summary of the claim is that the amount of compensation notified by the plaintiff to the above defendant is less than that of other co-owners of the real estate of this case, and thus, it cannot be accepted.

The above defendant wants to receive compensation for new construction of a new building equally and equally with other co-owners, and prior to that, the plaintiff's request for extradition.