1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B, among the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached list of real estate, shall be determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and shall be determined by the Presidential Decree.

1. Facts of premise;

A. The Plaintiff refers to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), which was in force at the time of the issue, unless there is a special reference below the Urban Improvement Act.

Pursuant to the attached list of real estate, it is the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association whose business area covers the Seoul Seongbuk-gu Seoul F one, including the site of each building listed in the attached list.

B. The head of Seongbuk-gu Office approved the management and disposal plan on September 12, 2016 after obtaining authorization for the establishment of the Plaintiff on March 20, 2009; authorization for the implementation of the project on January 10, 2013; and authorization for the implementation of the project on November 25, 2015; and publicly notified the plan on September 19, 201.

C. The Defendants did not comply with the Plaintiff’s request for extradition while occupying a building in the business area, as described in paragraph (1) of this Article, even before the date of closing the argument of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 4 (including more than one number), Gap 5-6, 8, 9, and 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts under the premise, the Plaintiff is an implementer who has obtained authorization for a management and disposal plan under the Urban Improvement Act, and the Defendants occupy a building in a rearrangement zone as stated in paragraph (1) of this Article.

D. However, if a management and disposition plan is authorized pursuant to Article 49(3) and (6) of the Act, the use and profit of the right holder, such as the owner, lessee, etc. of the previous building, shall be suspended. Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to deliver the portion of possession of each Defendant to the Plaintiff, which was allowed to use and profit from

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da22094 Decided December 22, 1992, and Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635 Decided May 27, 2010, etc.) B.

The defendants' assertion as to defendant D and E's assertion is alleged to be invalid because they failed to meet at least 3/4 of the owners' consent requirements under Article 16 (1) of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents.