1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B: real estate listed in No. 5 of [Attachment 2] real estate list;

B. Defendant C is attached Form 2.

1. Under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017; hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), the Plaintiff is an association that obtained authorization to establish an association from the Gyeyang market on February 21, 2012 under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017; hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

On January 15, 2016, the Plaintiff obtained authorization for the implementation of the instant redevelopment project from the Gyeyang market, and on February 27, 2017, the management and disposal plan was publicly announced on the same day.

The defendants occupy the real estate specified in the order of Paragraph (1) in the above improvement zone.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry of Gap1-5 evidence (including attachment of a provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The main text of Article 49(6) of the Urban Improvement Act provides that “When the authorization of the management and disposal plan is publicly announced, any right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, leasee, etc. of the previous land or structure, shall not use or profit from the previous land or structure until the date the previous public notice is given pursuant to Article 54.” Thus, when the public notice of the approval of the management and disposal plan is given, the use or profit of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, etc. of the previous land or structure, shall be suspended, and the project implementer may use or benefit from the former land or structure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to hand over the Plaintiff

B. Defendant D and E alleged to the effect that the Plaintiff cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim for delivery of the building since they did not have paid compensation for losses to the said Defendants, but they were as follows.