1. The Plaintiff, ① Defendant B was listed on the attached list, ② Defendant C was listed on the same list.

1. Determination on both arguments

A. The Plaintiff obtained authorization for the establishment of a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association and authorization for the implementation thereof from the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, respectively, and obtained authorization for the management and disposal plan for policemen on March 24, 2016. The head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly notified the management and disposal plan approved on March 24, 2016 (the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government public notice I). After that, the Plaintiff deposited the Defendants, etc. as the deposited money on December 9, 2016 in accordance with the adjudication of expropriation by the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Metropolitan City as of October 28, 2016. Meanwhile, even though the Defendants were initially the Plaintiff’s members, but were classified as the subject of liquidation due to the lack of application for parcelling-out, the Defendants did not dispute between the parties, or may be recognized by adding up the whole purport of each pleading in the attached list owned by the Defendants to the whole purport of each pleading of Gap 1-10 (including each number).

According to these facts, in relation to the Defendants, the Plaintiff may be deemed to have completed all the compensation procedures provided for in Article 46 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”). (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da40097, Aug. 22, 2013), barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff.

B. On this ground, the Defendants asserted that they could not comply with the Plaintiff’s request for the delivery of each of the instant buildings on the ground as stated in the separate sheet. However, the mere fact that resettlement funds and residential relocation expenses have not been paid yet (or repayment deposit) cannot serve as a justifiable ground for preventing the Plaintiff’s request for the delivery of each of the instant buildings. Accordingly, each of the aforementioned arguments by the Defendants disputing this point can be accepted.