1. On November 17, 2014, the plaintiff filed a petition for adjudication with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 24, 2009, the Defendant is the Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project Association which was authorized by the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on December 24, 2009 to implement the Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project (hereinafter “instant project”), and the Plaintiffs are the owners of each relevant real estate in the attached list in the said project area (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On November 7, 2012, the Defendant received the application for parcelling-out from January 4, 2013 to March 4, 2013, and from March 15, 2013 to March 24, 2013 (hereinafter “instant application period”), and the Plaintiffs did not apply for parcelling-out to the Defendant during the said period.

C. The Defendant obtained project implementation authorization from the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on August 8, 2013.

From November 11, 2013 to December 10, 2013, the Defendant made an inspection announcement of a compensation plan under Article 15(1) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”), but subsequently, made it clear that the Defendant prepared an appraisal for cash settlement through the association newsletter on July 2, 2014, and did not proceed with specific procedures for consultation or application for adjudication, such as sending a written request for consultation, even until the date of the closing of argument.

E. On November 17, 2014, the Plaintiffs sent a written claim for adjudication on an application for adjudication on expropriation of the instant real estate, and the said written statement reached the Defendant on November 18, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-3, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, Gap evidence 3 and 4, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs asserted that they are eligible for cash settlement because they did not file an application for parcelling-out during the period of application for parcelling-out.