1. The Plaintiff. 1) Defendant B is the entire real estate listed in the attached Table 2, and Defendant C is the attached Table 7.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association established under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents to implement a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project with the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul E unit as a project implementation district

The head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government approved the establishment of the association on December 18, 2007, the authorization for the implementation of the project on October 10, 2014, and the management and disposal plan on September 17, 2015, and publicly announced the plan.

B. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet is located in the project implementation district above.

C. Defendant B is the entire real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2; Defendant C is the entire real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 7; Defendant D occupies all the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 11 as the owner.

[Reasons for Recognition] Defendant C, D: Evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Defendant B’s purport of the entire pleading

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the notice of the approval decision of the above management and disposal plan is that the Defendants, the owners of each real estate listed in the attached list within the execution zone of the improvement project of the Plaintiff Union, lost their right to use and profit from the real estate, and the Plaintiff Union acquired the right to use and profit from the real estate for the implementation of the improvement project, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the portion of the land occupied and used to the Plaintiff Union.

B. The defendant C's assertion that the defendant cannot comply with the duty of delivery because the appraised amount of his own property is less than the appraised amount, but the above argument does not constitute a defense of denial of the claim for delivery filed by the defendant C, a partner who filed the application for parcelling-out, and therefore, it is difficult to accept without having to consider other points.

3. Thus, the plaintiff union's claims against the defendants are justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.