1. The Plaintiff:

(a) Defendant I’s real estate listed in Annex I’s Schedule 1;

B. Defendant J shall set out in [Attachment List No. 2].

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment project partnership with the area of project implementation consisting of 103,621.76 square meters of G G in Yongsan-si, Changwon-si, and each real estate listed in the separate sheet is located in the said project implementation district. The Defendants are owners of the above real estate (Defendant I is the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2, the defendant K is the owner of the above real estate, the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3, the defendant K is the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 4, and the defendant L is the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 4). The Defendants are all the Plaintiff’s partners.

3) On December 15, 2015, the Changwon market approved and publicly notified a management and disposition plan against the Plaintiff. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, evidence Nos. 2-4, and the purport of the entire pleadings]

B. According to the main sentence of Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, when a management and disposal plan is authorized and the notice thereof is made, the owner of the previous land or structure cannot use or benefit from the previous land or structure until the date of the public notice of relocation under Article 54 of the same Act. As recognized earlier, the public notice of approval of the management and disposal plan was given, the Defendants cannot use or benefit from each real estate listed in the attached list, and are obligated

2. The Defendants asserted as to the Defendants’ assertion that the Plaintiff cannot accept the appraisal amount calculated on each real estate listed in the separate sheet, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim for delivery of real estate.

However, since the defendants are members who applied for parcelling-out, they are not eligible for compensation, they cannot refuse the plaintiff's claim for delivery of real estate on the grounds that there are many appraisal values and deficit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified.