1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B: The real estate listed in the real estate list in Appendix 1;

B. Defendant C shall list the attached real estate in attached Form 2.

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the plaintiff's claim, the facts identical to the entries in the grounds for the claim in the attached Form can be acknowledged.

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff may request the defendant who possesses each real estate listed in the separate sheet of real estate, except in extenuating circumstances.

Whether there are such special circumstances, the legitimacy of the defendant's defense is examined below.

On the defendant's defense, the defendant B omitted the obstacles owned by him in the investigation and evaluation, which is a defense that the defendant B refused to deliver until the compensation for the obstacles is completed.

The statement No. 4 is merely a list prepared by Defendant B immediately before its submission, and it is difficult to recognize the above assertion because it is difficult to escape from the nature of a preparatory document.

On the other hand, there is no proof by Defendant B, and the above defense cannot be accepted.

Although the Defendants asserted that the establishment of the Plaintiff’s association is null and void, they cannot accept the Plaintiff’s establishment without any proof.

The judgment shall be omitted because there is no dispute over resettlement funds, residential relocation expenses, and directors' expenses.

Resettlement funds, relocation expenses, and movable property transfer expenses shall be deemed compensation for losses under the Public Works Act referred to in the proviso to Article 81 (1) 2 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas.

The nature of the defense that the delivery is refused until it is paid is a prior performance defense.

Even if the right to claim the payment is a right under public law, it shall not be prohibited from exercising such right in response to the request for the delivery of a building.

Incheon District Court Decision 2018Da225660 Decided October 31, 2018 refers to the Supreme Court Decision 2018Da12560 Decided October 31, 201. Thus, the Defendants are obligated to deliver each real estate listed in

The plaintiff's claim is accepted and the decision is rendered in favor of the plaintiff.

In May 2018, the plaintiff has recently set a suit.