1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and maintenance project partnership established pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) to implement a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”) on a scale of 51,526 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, and Defendant B is an owner of buildings listed in the attached Table Nos. 1 and 2 within the said project zone, and Defendant C is each owner of buildings listed in the same Table Nos. 1 and 2.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Since the management and disposal plan was authorized and publicly announced on May 30, 2013 for the instant improvement project by the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendants are obligated to deliver each of their own real estate under Article 49(6) of the Urban Improvement Act.

B. A project implementer of a housing redevelopment project who is not a member of the association for the purpose of commencing the project is required to receive the land or buildings within the rearrangement zone owned by the association in order to be delivered to a person subject to the settlement of cash who is not a member of the association, and the management and disposal plan is insufficient only with the approval and the consultation or expropriation procedure is required pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas. If the consultation or expropriation procedure is not completed, the land or buildings cannot be transferred to the person subject to the settlement of cash notwithstanding the provisions of Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas. If the consultation on the settlement amount between the association and the person subject to the settlement of cash is reached, the obligation to pay the settlement amount and

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da91364 Decided July 28, 201). However, the Plaintiff consulted with the Defendants on the settlement money.

Inasmuch as there is no evidence to prove the fact that the plaintiff had completed or had undergone the confinement procedure, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.