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 consolidation project association established pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) to implement a housing redevelopment improvement project (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”) in the Nowon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Filwon, Nam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, including the site for each real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On October 23, 2015, the Plaintiff obtained authorization from the astronomical City Mayor for the management and disposal plan (hereinafter “instant management and disposal plan”) and publicly notified the details of the instant management and disposal plan on November 2, 2015.

C. The Defendants possessed each of the instant real estate as the owner of each of the instant real estate, and the Defendants did not apply for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out and became subject to cash settlement under Article 47 of the Urban Improvement Act.

On June 19, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication of expropriation with the local Land Tribunal of Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, where the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the amount of liquidation, and on August 3, 2017, the Chungcheongnam-do Local Land Tribunal rendered a ruling of expropriation on each of the relevant real estate owned by the Defendants on August 3, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 10 evidence (including additional evidence) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. When the public notice of approval 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 of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, leasee, etc. of the previous land or buildings shall be suspended pursuant to paragraph (6) of the same Article, and the project implementer may use and profit from the former land or buildings (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants, the owners of real estate in the rearrangement zone of this case, are