1. The Defendants deliver to the Plaintiff the real estate indicated in the attached list.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. 1) In order to implement a housing reconstruction improvement project with the size of 36,243.80 square meters as a rearrangement zone located in Yongsan-si, Changwon-si, Changwon-si, the Plaintiff is entitled to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

(2) On September 29, 2017, the original city approved the Plaintiff’s management and disposition plan and publicly notified it.

3) Real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”)

The Plaintiff is located within the rearrangement zone. Defendant B is the owner of the instant building and the owner of the instant building, who is the site for the instant building, is the head of Changwon-si E large 248 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

A) Of the co-owners holding 183/248 shares, Defendant C is co-owners holding 65/248 shares of the instant land. The Defendants occupy the instant building. [The fact that there is no dispute over grounds for recognition, entries in Gap’s evidence 1 through 7, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

B. Determination 1) The main text of Article 81(1) of the Urban Improvement Act provides, “When the authorization of the management and disposal plan is publicly announced, the owners, superficies, persons having rights to lease on a deposit basis, lease on a deposit basis, etc. of the previous land or buildings shall not use or profit from the previous land or buildings until the date the transfer is publicly announced under Article 86.” Thus, when the authorization of the management and disposal plan is publicly notified, the use or profit from the former land or buildings by the right holders, such as owners, superficies, persons having rights to lease on a deposit basis, etc. 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). Therefore, the Defendants whose use or profit from the building of this case has been suspended

2. Determination as to the Defendants’ assertion