1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant C, each of whom is named in the separate sheet No. 1, and the buildings listed in the separate sheet No. 2.

1. Facts recognized;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association established with the area of 97,233 square meters in Gwangju-dong-gu, Gwangju-gu, as a project district. A project implementer who completed the registration of incorporation on June 24, 2008 with the authorization of the head of the Dong-gu, competent authority on May 16, 2008, and the Defendant B is a redevelopment project district, and the liquidation party who owns buildings listed in the attached Table 1 list in the attached Table 2 list in the reconstruction project district.

B. The Plaintiff Union was authorized to implement a redevelopment project on September 23, 2015 by the head of the Dong/Dong, the competent authority, and was publicly notified on the same day after obtaining authorization for the implementation of the redevelopment project on April 29, 2016.

C. On March 15, 2017, the acceptance ruling by the Gwangju Regional Land Tribunal against the Defendants was made, and the Plaintiff deposited compensation against the Defendants.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Under Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (if a management and disposal plan is authorized and announced, a right holder, such as the owner of the previous land or building, shall not use or benefit from the previous land or building until the date the previous announcement is made), the Defendants cannot use or benefit from each building listed in the separate sheet from April 29, 2016, and are obligated to order the Plaintiff, who is the project implementer, respectively.

B. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff may perform the obligation to pay resettlement funds, housing relocation expenses, and director expenses. However, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff has the obligation to pay the said compensation to the Defendants.

The defendants' assertion is without merit.