Defendant B is a building listed in the separate sheet No. 1, and Defendant C is a building listed in the separate sheet No. 2.

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff is an organization established to implement a housing redevelopment improvement project for the area of its unit, including buildings listed in the attached list. On July 20, 2015, the Plaintiff obtained authorization of the management and disposal plan for the said improvement project from the head of the Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City Office, and the said authorization was publicly notified on July 29, 2015.

Defendant B is the building indicated in the attached Table 1 list, Defendant C is the building listed in the attached Table 2 list, Defendant D is the building listed in the attached Table 3 list, and Defendant E is each owner of the building listed in the attached Table 4 list, and is a person subject to cash settlement who has not applied for the sale within the application period

The Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication of expropriation with the Busan Metropolitan City Regional Land Expropriation Committee, which did not reach an agreement with the Defendants on compensation, and on February 20, 2017, the said Expropriation Committee rendered a ruling on May 4, 2017, when accepting buildings, etc. listed in the separate sheet and setting compensation for losses.

(hereinafter “instant adjudication.” Accordingly, the Plaintiff deposited each of the Defendants’ respective compensations from April 25, 2017 to May 1, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's evidence (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the whole purport of the pleading, and the defense prior to the decision on the claim of the principal lawsuit concerning the claim of the whole purport of the pleading, although the approval of the management and disposition plan was publicly notified, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff is not qualified to sue. However, in the lawsuit for performance as in this case, the existence of the right to sue is determined within the merits. Thus, the above defense is without merit.

Defendant B, a representative of the Plaintiff, was reappointed after the expiration of the term of office of the president of the partnership, but did not obtain authorization for the establishment of the partnership from the competent authority to obtain authorization for the establishment of the partnership. Therefore, the instant lawsuit is filed by a person without the power of representation.