1. The Plaintiff, ① Defendant B, C, and D are the buildings emitted from the Schedule No. 1; ② Defendant E comes from the Schedule No. 2.

1. Determination on both arguments

A. The Plaintiff obtained authorization for the establishment of a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association and authorization for the implementation thereof from the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, respectively, and obtained authorization for the management and disposal plan on February 2, 2017. The head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly notified the management and disposal plan approved on March 2, 2017 (Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly notified K). After that, the Plaintiff deposited some Defendants, etc. as part of the Defendants, etc. as the Defendants as the deposit on October 18, 2017 in accordance with the adjudication of acceptance on August 25, 2017 by the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Metropolitan City. Meanwhile, even though some Defendants, etc. were initially designated as the subject of liquidation since they did not file an application for purchase even though they did not have any dispute between the parties, or the Defendants may be recognized by adding them to the whole purport of all pleadings in each part of Gap 1-9 (including each number).

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”). Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are obliged to deliver each of their respective parts to the Plaintiff, respectively.

B. As to this, Defendant E and F contests the purport that the Plaintiff’s request for the delivery of each of the instant building against the said Defendants on the following grounds. However, solely on the fact that Defendant E and F did not constitute “pre-consultative body,” it cannot be a justifiable ground to block the Plaintiff’s request for the delivery of the instant building, and there is no evidence to support the existence of the Plaintiff’s legitimate grounds for invalidation in the management and disposition plan.