1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant C, the real estate listed in attached Table No. 1, and Defendant C, from the Plaintiff, KRW 226,890.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association established to implement a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”) with the implementation area of the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F 43,329 square meters.

B. The Plaintiff received authorization to establish an association on September 18, 2008 from the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; the authorization to implement the project on September 5, 2013; and the authorization to implement the management and disposal plan on November 13, 2014 (hereinafter “the authorization to implement the management and disposal plan of this case”); and the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly announced the management and disposal plan on November 13, 2014.

C. All of the real estate listed in the separate sheet are located within the implementation zone of the instant rearrangement project; Defendant B owns the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1; Defendant C owns the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2; Defendant D’s real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3; and Defendant E owns the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 4, respectively.

The Defendants were members of the Plaintiff, but did not file an application for parcelling-out, and possessed each of the above real estate as of the closing date of the pleadings in this case.

[Based on the recognition] Defendant B, C: A without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Gap evidence 1, 4-1, 4, and Gap evidence 5 through 7: The judgment by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act) is rendered by public notice (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. When a management and disposal plan under Article 49(3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) for the cause of the claim is publicly notified, the use and profit of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leaseer, etc. for the previous land or buildings shall be suspended pursuant to the main sentence of paragraph (6) of the same Article, and the project implementer shall be allowed to 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). In this case,