1. The Plaintiff:

1.(a)

Defendant B’s second floor among the real property listed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Schedule;

1.(b)

Defendant C.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a cooperative established to implement a housing redevelopment improvement project (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”) in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul. Around that time, the Plaintiff was authorized to establish an association on April 29, 2008, completed the establishment registration on May 2, 2008. A management and disposal plan for the instant rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant management and disposal plan”) was authorized on June 30, 2016, and was publicly notified around that time.

B. The Defendants possess the instant real estate as the owner of each real estate indicated in the separate sheet located within the instant rearrangement project zone (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 2, 3, and 7 of evidence Nos. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. 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”) is publicly announced, the use or profit of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leaseer, etc. of the previous land or buildings shall be suspended, and the project implementer shall be allowed to use or 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 addition, the fact that the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly announced the management and disposal plan concerning the rearrangement project of this case is as seen earlier, the Defendants, the owners of real estate located within the implementation zone of the rearrangement project of this case, cannot use or benefit from each real estate under the main sentence of Article 49(6) of the Urban Improvement Act. The Defendants, as the implementer of the rearrangement project of this case, are obligated to deliver each of this case real estate.

B. As to this, Defendant B asserts that the appraisal value and the compensation pursuant thereto are unfairly calculated, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot comply with the claim.