1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B received KRW 13,000,000 from the Plaintiff, and at the same time real estate listed in the attached Table.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and improvement project association approved by the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on April 27, 2010 in order to remove worn-out and inferior structures, etc. in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I and reconstruct multi-family housing and ancillary welfare facilities.

B. Under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), the Plaintiff obtained authorization from the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”) to implement the housing reconstruction improvement project from the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and 271 lots (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”), and received the approval of the management and disposal plan on March 22, 2016, and publicly notified on March 24, 20

C. The Defendants leased and possessed each corresponding part of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet located in the Plaintiff’s improvement zone.

[Ground of recognition] The Plaintiff and the Defendants B, C, D, and E: A without dispute; entry of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2; the entire purport of the pleading and the remaining Defendants: Article 150(3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act

2. According to Article 49(6) of the Act on the Determination of Grounds for Claims, when a public notice of approval of a management and disposal plan is given in an urban rearrangement project, a right holder, such as the owner, lessee, etc. of the previous land or structure, may not use or profit from the land or structure, and the project implementer may use or profit from the land or structure. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are obligated to deliver each of the corresponding parts

3. Determination as to the assertion of Defendant B, C, D, and E

A. (1) Unlike redevelopment projects, the main text of Article 38 and Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for the Defendants’ assertion on the unconstitutionality of relevant laws and regulations permits a project implementer to accept a right of lease without actual compensation, thereby violating Article 23(1) and (3) of the Constitution on the Guarantee of Property Rights.

(b).