1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant C, indicated in the [Attachment] List of Real Estate; and Defendant C, indicated in the same List of Real Estate.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association whose project implementation area covers 80,145 square meters in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and is subject to the approval of the project implementation on July 21, 2009 by the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the authorization of the implementation of the project on February 25, 2015, the authorization of the implementation of the project on February 24, 2015, and the approval of the management and disposal plan under Article 49 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), and the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government announced the management and disposal plan on February

B. Defendant B is each owner of the buildings listed in the attached list (2) of the real estate, and Defendant C is the subject of liquidation of the buildings listed in the same list (4).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including virtual number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. When a public notice of a management and disposal plan under Article 49(3) of the Act on the Determination of Grounds for Claim is given, the use and profit-making by the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, etc. of the previous land or buildings, shall be suspended pursuant to Article 49(6) of the same Act, and the project implementer may use and profit from the former land or buildings (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da22094, Dec. 22, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). Therefore, the Plaintiff who acquired the right to use and profit-making in accordance with the public notice of the management and disposal plan of this case, the Defendant B is obligated to deliver each of the buildings listed in

B. The Defendants’ assertion asserts that the Defendants cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim prior to the adjudication of acceptance and payment of compensation.

It is reasonable to consider that the operator of housing redevelopment improvement project has completed the compensation for losses under the Public Works Act under Article 49 (6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions when he/she deposited the compensation for losses prescribed by the adjudication of expropriation by the competent Land Tribunal. Supreme Court Decision 2012Da40097 Decided August 22, 2013