The Plaintiff

A. Defendant B: each real estate listed in Appendix Nos. 4 and 5;

B. The defendant C shall set forth the annexed list.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an association that implements a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project by designating the E members of the Guang City as the project implementation zone. The Defendants owned each real estate indicated in the order located within the said project implementation zone (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”), and individual real estate is owned by the sequences in the separate sheet.

B. On December 6, 2019, the Plaintiff obtained authorization for a management and disposition plan regarding A’s housing redevelopment project pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance of Urban and Residential Environments (hereinafter “Urban and Residential Environments Act”) by means of “F” notification from the king mayor of Guang City.

[Reasons for Recognition] Defendant C, D: The absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings: deemed confession (Article 150(1) of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. When the notice of provisional notice, which is a management and disposition plan under Article 78(4) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for the cause of the claim, is given, the use and profit of the right holder, such as the owner of the previous land or building and the person holding the right to lease on a deposit basis, is suspended pursuant to Article 81(1) of the same Act, and the project implementer is entitled to use and profit from the former land or building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). Thus, the Defendants whose use and profit as the owner and the user have been suspended pursuant to the notice of the management and disposition plan

3. Determination as to Defendant D and C’s assertion

A. Defendant D and C’s assertion 1 is the owner of the real estate Nos. 4 and 5 of this case, and Defendant D are engaged in friendship or business in the real estate Nos. 4 and 5 of this case. However, Defendant D cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request for extradition on the ground that the compensation for losses are written.

2) As Defendant C’s assertion was the owner of the instant real estate No. 12, Defendant C was not completely compensated for the goodwill regarding the instant real estate No. 12, and thus, Defendant C cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s request for extradition.

B. 1) Determination No. 2 of the proviso of Article 81(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas.