1. The Defendants deliver to the Plaintiff the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association that obtained authorization to establish a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant project”) on April 14, 2010, in order to implement a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant project”) with the area of 55,956 square meters in Gwangju-si.

B. On June 21, 2018, the Lighting Market approved and publicly notified the Plaintiff’s management and disposal plan.

C. The Defendants are the owners and occupants of the real estate stated in the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) located within the instant business area.

On May 13, 2019, the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Tribunal decided on June 27, 2019 on the commencement date of expropriation and decided to accept compensation for obstacles, etc. to the real estate of this case. On June 11, 2019, the Plaintiff deposited the Defendants as depositors in full due to the above expropriation ruling.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1-8 (including virtual number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. When a management and disposal plan prescribed in the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) is authorized and announced as to the cause of the claim, the use and profit of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, etc. of the previous land or buildings shall be suspended, and the project implementer may use and profit from the former land or buildings (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). The management and disposal plan regarding the Plaintiff’s rearrangement project was authorized and announced publicly, and the fact that the Plaintiff deposited all the compensation against the Defendants according to the adjudication of expropriation is as seen earlier, the

B. The main point of the argument of Defendant C is that the Plaintiff, the representative of the collective ownership property, submitted the written consent to the Defendant B for the establishment of the association, but without such procedure, from the luminous market.