1. The Defendants deliver to the Plaintiff each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association whose business area covers 52,749m2 in the Dong-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City.

B. On July 13, 2009, the Plaintiff obtained authorization for the implementation of the project from the head of the Dong-gu Gwangju Metropolitan City with respect to the above project zone, and received the application for parcelling-out from its members, and on December 27, 2017, the Plaintiff was publicly notified by the head of the Dong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Dong-gu on the same day.

C. The Defendants are the owners of each of the pertinent real estate listed in paragraph (1) of this Article located within the project implementation district of the said rearrangement project (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”), who have filed an application for parcelling-out, and are the members of the Plaintiff, and possess each of the instant

【Reasons for Recognition】 The entries of Evidence Nos. 1 through 32, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. When the approval of 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”) is publicly announced, the use and profit of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leaseer, etc. of the previous land or buildings, shall be suspended pursuant to Article 49(6) of the same Act, and the project implementer may 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); barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are obligated to deliver each of the pertinent real estate to the Plaintiff who acquired the right

B. Defendant B asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff’s compensation is too low that it cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim, and Defendant C and F cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim without any justifiable compensation.

As long as the plaintiff's member applied for parcelling-out legally as the plaintiff's member, the plaintiff's claim cannot be refused due to the above reasons. Thus, the above defendants' assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion.