1. The Plaintiff:

(a) Defendant B shall have the real property listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2;

B. Defendant C is a list No. 1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an redevelopment and consolidation project association that has obtained authorization to implement a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project in accordance with the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

B. Defendant B and C occupy as co-owners of each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2, and Defendant C and D occupy as co-owners of each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 3 through 5.

The defendants became eligible for cash settlement because they did not apply for the application for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out by the plaintiff association.

C. After obtaining authorization for project implementation, the Plaintiff obtained authorization for a management and disposal plan under Article 74 of the Urban Improvement Act on May 4, 2016, and the said management and disposal plan was publicly announced as F of the annual announcement of the Busan Metropolitan City, on May 11, 2016, pursuant to Article 78(4) of the Urban Improvement Act.

The Plaintiff deposited KRW 131,143,060 to Defendant B on September 5, 2018, KRW 250,732,100 to Defendant C, and KRW 112,398,390 to Defendant D, thereby completing the compensation for losses under the proviso of Article 81(1)2 of the Urban Improvement Act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 7 evidence, purport of whole pleadings

2. In accordance with the public notice of the approval plan for the management and disposal plan as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants were unable to use and profit from each of the above real estate under Article 81(1) of the Act, and thus, they are obligated to deliver it to the Plaintiff,

3. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. When obtaining authorization for the establishment of the Defendants, the Plaintiff reported 43 persons whose whereabouts are unknown in calculating the number of owners of land, etc. within the rearrangement project zone, and 20 persons among them are not known.

Therefore, even though the consent ratio of the owner of the land, etc. for the establishment of the association is less than 80%, the association establishment disposition is taken.