1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B: (a) the real estate listed in Section 1 of the annexed Schedule of Real Estate;

B. Defendant C shall be attached hereto.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and rearrangement project association established for the purpose of housing reconstruction by making the Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu J 47,501 square meters of land as a rearrangement zone. The Defendants are tenants possessing real estate in the attached Table of real estate in the rearrangement zone.

B. The Plaintiff obtained authorization to establish an association on June 4, 2010, authorization to implement the project on March 27, 2013, authorization to revise the project on July 8, 2014, respectively, and obtained authorization from the head of Mapo-gu on April 24, 2015.

The head of Mapo-gu publicly announced on April 30, 2015 the approval of the management and disposal plan.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that confessions are deemed to be made between Defendant B and C, and there is no dispute between the remaining Defendants, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments as described in each of the following items: Gap 1 through 3, Gap 4-1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, Gap 5 through 8, Gap 10-1, 2, and Gap 11 through 13

2. Determination

A. When a management and disposal plan is authorized and publicly announced pursuant to Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Residential Environments, a right holder, such as the owner of the previous land or building, cannot use or profit from the previous land or building until the date of the public announcement of the relocation. Therefore, the Defendants, the lessee of the building in a rearrangement zone, are obliged to deliver each building

B. As to the Defendants’ assertion, Defendant F asserted that the buildings listed in Section 7 of the Attached List No. 7 are owned by himself/herself newly constructed at his/her own expense, but it is insufficient to recognize the said buildings only by the descriptions described in Category B 3-1 and 2.

Defendant K, E, F, G, L, I, etc. asserted that they cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request before receiving business compensation, facility investment expenses, premiums, moving expenses, etc.

However, unlike residential environment improvement projects and housing redevelopment projects, a project implementer shall claim resettlement funds, compensation, etc. in a housing reconstruction project for which the expropriation or use under the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works is not premised.