1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association established with the approval of establishment from the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “head of Mapo-gu”) on July 18, 2008 to implement the housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant project”) for the Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government J pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”). The Defendants are the owners of real estate in the instant project area.

B. On November 25, 2009, the Plaintiff obtained authorization from the head of Mapo-gu Office to newly construct 12, 729 households of multi-family housing in the instant project zone. On January 22, 2010, the Plaintiff provided guidance for the application for parcelling-out to the members, and the Defendants applied for parcelling-out within the period notified by the Plaintiff.

C. After obtaining authorization to implement the relevant project, the Plaintiff obtained authorization to implement the project on five occasions on December 10, 201; June 22, 2011; April 29, 2013; June 27, 2013; and November 25, 2013.

On May 22, 2013, the Plaintiff received an administrative disposition plan from the head of Mapo-gu, and the head of Mapo-gu announced it on May 30, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 12 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 24 and 26, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendants asserted that they were not able to use and benefit from the real estate owned within the instant project area since May 30, 2013, which was publicly notified of the approval plan for the management and disposal plan for the instant project pursuant to Article 49(6) of the Urban Improvement Act, but did not perform their obligations by continuously occupying the real estate and refusing to deliver it.

The Plaintiff is due to the Defendants’ nonperformance of the obligation to refuse delivery, even if the Plaintiff completed the settlement of cash for the persons subject to settlement of cash in accordance with the project implementation plan dated November 25, 2009 on September 26, 2014 and thereafter did not interfere with the progress of the instant project.