1. On May 14, 2015, the Plaintiffs stated the terms “maintenance Project Costs” in the attached list as of May 14, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 20, 2007, the Mayor of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government designated and publicly announced the 68,230 square meters of HJ as a G re-building improvement zone. The Defendant, by the head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, did not file an application for parcelling-out during the period of application for parcelling-out (from August 14, 2013 to October 22, 2013) and lost its status as a member because the Defendant obtained authorization from the head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to establish an association on September 4, 2008, authorization to implement a project on June 21, 2013, authorization to implement a project plan on January 22, 2015, respectively.

B. On May 14, 2015, the Defendant imposed the improvement project cost charges for the amount indicated in the separate sheet on the Plaintiffs.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4 through 6 (including paper numbers), the purpose of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The defendant cannot impose the improvement project cost on the plaintiffs who are cash liquidation agents. Thus, the maintenance project cost charge obligation in the amount indicated in the attached Table (hereinafter "the debt in this case").

No. 2) There is no cash clearing agent. (2) The Defendant is merely liable to pay the rearrangement project cost incurred from the time when he/she loses his/her membership, and the Defendant is liable to pay the rearrangement project cost incurred from the time when he/she loses his/her membership. As such,

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. Determination 1) Relevant legal principles and the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

Article 60 (1) provides that "The rearrangement project cost shall be borne by a project implementer, except as otherwise expressly provided for in this Act or other Acts and subordinate statutes," and Article 61 (1) provides that "the project implementer may impose and collect the difference between the cost and income accrued in the course of implementing the rearrangement project under Article 60 (1) from the owners of land, etc. as the charges, etc., and Article 61 (3) provides that "the project implementer may impose and collect the difference between the cost and income accrued in the course of implementing the rearrangement project."