1. The Defendants deliver to the Plaintiff the buildings listed in the attached list.

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

3.

1. Determination on both arguments

A. The Plaintiff obtained authorization from the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government for the establishment of a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association and authorization for the implementation of a project, respectively, and obtained authorization for the management and disposal plan on February 26, 2015. The head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly notified the management and disposal plan approved on February 26, 2015. The Plaintiff thereafter deposited the Defendants as deposited on August 28, 2015, totaling KRW 879,075,120 (= compensation amounting to KRW 439,537,560 for Defendant C (= compensation amounting to KRW 439,537,560) with the Defendants as compensation amounting to KRW 439,537,560), while the Defendants were initially members of the Plaintiff, but they did not apply for parcelling-out, but they did not occupy the buildings on the attached list owned by the Defendants until now after being classified as liquidated (hereinafter “the building number of each party”).

According to these facts, in relation to the Defendants, the Plaintiff may be deemed to have completed all the compensation procedures provided for in Article 46 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”). (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da40097, Aug. 22, 2013), barring special circumstances, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff.

B. As to this, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s request for the delivery of the instant building on the grounds as stated in the attached Form. However, ① A et al. filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the confirmation of invalidity of the management and disposal plan and the confirmation of invalidity of the project implementation authorization, respectively, but such claims were not accepted in entirety, and thus, in the Seoul Administrative Court on April 1, 201