1. The Plaintiff, ① Defendant B is the building set out in Appendix 1, ② Defendant C is the building set out in Appendix 1.

1. Determination on both arguments

A. The Plaintiff obtained authorization for the establishment of a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association and authorization for project implementation respectively from the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and obtained authorization for the management and disposal plan on February 2, 2017, and the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly announced a management and disposal plan approved on March 2, 2017 (the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Public NotificationF). After that, the Plaintiff deposited some Defendants, etc. as part of the Defendants, etc. as the Defendants as the principal deposit on October 19, 2017 in accordance with the Seoul Local Land Expropriation Committee’s expropriation ruling on August 25, 2017. Meanwhile, even though some Defendants, etc. were classified as the subject of liquidation because they did not request the purchase, they may not dispute between the parties or recognize the fact that they occupied each relevant building part of the attached list as the object of liquidation by adding the whole purport of pleadings to each part of Gap 1-7 (including each number).

According to the facts acknowledged as above, in relation to the Defendants, the Plaintiff may be deemed to have completed all the compensation procedures provided for in Article 46 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”). Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are obliged to deliver each of their respective parts to the Plaintiff, respectively.

B. As to this, Defendant B argues, “The Plaintiff Union has no obligation to deliver the relevant land or building until the lawsuit for the reduction of the amount of delayed payment and additional dues for 40% of the relocation cost, relocation cost, relocation cost, and director cost is completed.” However, the Plaintiff Union bears the obligation to pay the resident of the residential building, such as relocation cost and director cost, and the user of the residential building who has received compensation for expropriation.