1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant D, each of the buildings listed in the separate sheet 1.3, and Defendant D, each of the buildings listed in the separate sheet 2.3.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and improvement project association established under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) for the purpose of promoting the housing reconstruction improvement project (hereinafter “instant reconstruction project”) on the land of Gangnam-gu Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul. The Defendant is a lessee of the real estate indicated in the attached list of real estate located within the instant reconstruction project zone.

B. On April 6, 2018, the head of Gangnam-gu approved the Plaintiff’s management and disposal plan for the instant reconstruction project, and publicly notified on April 13, 2018.

[Ground for recognition] Defendant B: A without dispute; entries in Gap evidence 1 through 5; 6, and 7; the purport of the whole pleadings; Defendant D: A by the deemed confession (Article 208(3)2 and Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. The main text of Article 81(1) of the Act on the Determination of Urban Improvement provides, “When the authorization of the management and disposition plan is publicly announced, the owners, superficies, persons having rights to lease, lease, lease holders, etc. of the previous land or buildings shall not use or benefit from the previous land or buildings until the date of the public announcement of transfer under Article 86.” Thus, when the public announcement of the approval plan for the management and disposition plan is made, the use or benefit of the right holders, such as owners, superficies, lease holders, etc. of the previous land or buildings shall be suspended, and the project implementer may use or benefit from the former land or buildings (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). In light of the foregoing legal principles, the Defendants, the lessee for whom the use or benefit has been suspended following the public announcement of the approval

As to this, Defendant B violated the principle of good faith.