1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B: (a) real estate in the attached list No. 1;

B. Defendant C shall undertake the real estate of the attached list No. 2.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and improvement project association approved by the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on May 4, 2010 to implement a housing reconstruction project in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul E Group. The Defendants are tenants possessing each building listed in the separate sheet in the Plaintiff’s reconstruction improvement zone.

B. On December 5, 2013, the Plaintiff received authorization for the change of the project implementation from the head of Eunpyeong-gu, and the authorization for the management and disposal plan on January 20, 2015, respectively.

The head of Eunpyeong-gu shall publicly notify the management and disposal plan on January 29, 2015.

Grounds for Recognition: The entries in Gap 2-1, 2, Gap 3, 4, 5, and 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. When the approval of a management and disposal plan is publicly announced pursuant to Article 49(6) of the Act on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments, the right holder, etc. of the previous land or structure cannot use or profit from the previous land or structure until the date of the public announcement of relocation. Therefore, the Defendants, who are the lessees of the building in a rearrangement zone, are obliged

B. Defendant B asserted to the effect that he cannot seek delivery by a lawsuit without the conciliation procedure of the prior consultative body and the Urban Dispute Resolution Committee for the prevention of compulsory removal prepared by Seoul Special Metropolitan City, but the above assertion is without merit unless it is subject to the aforementioned conciliation procedure, etc. under the relevant statutes

C. Although the Defendants asserted that they cannot comply with the request for extradition before receiving resettlement compensation, business compensation, premium, etc., unlike residential environment improvement projects and housing redevelopment projects, they cannot claim resettlement funds, compensation, etc. from a project implementer in a housing reconstruction project for which the expropriation and use under the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects is not premised (the same shall apply to cases where compensation has been paid in a reconstruction project) and the evidence submitted by the Defendants.