1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant C, respectively, are the buildings indicated in the separate list (i.e., the same list).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment development and rearrangement project association established under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) to implement a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project with a size of 51,526.2 square meters in Seoul Mapo-gu, Seoul E-mail as a project implementation district. The Plaintiff was authorized to implement the project on November 25, 2009; and the authorization to implement the project on June 22, 2011 by the head of Mapo-gu, Seoul; and on May 30, 2013, the head of Mapo-gu publicly notified the management and disposal plan on May 30, 2013.

B. Each building listed in the separate sheet is located in the project implementation district, and Defendant B is the owner of the building indicated in the separate sheet (i) and Defendant C is the same list as the owner of the building indicated in the separate sheet (B), and Defendant C is the father of Defendant C, the owner of the building indicated in the same list (B) and is residing in the above building together with Defendant C.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 8 (including each number), Eul evidence 13 and 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to Article 49(6) of the Act on the Determination of Claims against Defendant B and C, when a management and disposal plan is authorized and the public notice thereof is made, the owners of the previous land or buildings, etc. shall not use or profit from the previous land or buildings until the date of public notice of relocation under Article 54 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Areas, and the project implementer may use or benefit from it. The head of Mapo-gu approves the management and disposal plan on May 22, 2013 and publicly notified the fact on May 30, 2013. As seen earlier, the Defendants, the owners of buildings in the instant improvement zone, cannot use or benefit from each of the instant buildings, and are obligated to deliver each of the instant buildings to the Plaintiff who acquired the right to use or benefit from it

As to this, the above Defendants asserted to the effect that the above administrative disposition plan is null and void, but there is evidence to recognize it.