1. The Plaintiff, (1) Defendant B is indicated in the annexed Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, among the first floor of the building listed in the annexed Form No. 1 (1).

1. Determination on both arguments

A. The Plaintiff obtained authorization from the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government for the establishment of a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association and authorization for the implementation of a project, respectively, and obtained authorization for the management and disposal plan on February 26, 2015. The head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly announced the above management and disposal plan on February 26, 2015. The Plaintiff thereafter deposited the aforementioned management and disposal plan from August 24, 2015 to September 2015 as the Defendants’ deposits during the period from August 24, 2015 to September 2015, according to the adjudication of expropriation by the local Land Expropriation Committee of Seoul Metropolitan Government on July 24, 2015, with the Defendants as their deposits, each compensation for losses (i.e., compensation for Defendant B: 19,651, 320 won, 24, 942, 740 won, compensation for Defendant C: 736,494, 930 won, 921, 420 won

According to these facts, in relation to the defendants, the plaintiff completed all the compensation procedures under Article 46 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, barring special circumstances, the defendants are obligated to deliver the pertinent building to the plaintiff, respectively.

B. As to this, Defendant B asserted that the Plaintiff could not comply with the Plaintiff’s request for the extradition of the instant building on the grounds as stated in the attached Table B’s assertion, but Defendant B filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the confirmation of invalidity of the management and disposal plan and the confirmation of invalidity of the project implementation authorization, respectively, but the lawsuit for the confirmation of invalidity of the management and disposal plan and the confirmation of invalidity of the project implementation authorization were not accepted in entirety, and thus, Defendant B lost each of the Seoul Administrative Court’