1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the case where the part concerning the defendants' assertion of the court of first instance (the part concerning the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the defendant's assertion of March) and the part concerning Chapters 3, 12 through 4, 2 (the part concerning the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the defendants' assertion), and therefore, it

2. Parts to be dried;

A. The Defendants asserted that the Defendants’ request for extradition against the Defendants based on the instant management and disposition plan, which lost its validity, is groundless, since the amendment of the management and disposition plan was approved and the main part of the instant management and disposition plan was substantially modified.

However, as alleged by the Defendants, the amendment of the instant management and disposition plan constitutes a new management and disposition plan, and accordingly, it constitutes a new management and disposition plan, and accordingly, becomes null and void in the future (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da16500, Jun. 23, 2016). The Plaintiff, based on the amendment management and disposition plan, files an application for the issuance of the instant apartment with the Defendants, and the fact that the amendment was approved and announced around April 2018 is identical to the foregoing facts, and thus, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant apartment to the Plaintiff.

The above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

B. Defendant C asserts to the effect that the judgment on the additional argument by Defendant C in this Court was made in this Court, and it is nothing more than Defendant B’s mother, the owner of the apartment in this case.

However, the defendant C did not dispute the fact of possession in the first instance trial, and it is reasonable to view that the possession of the family members living together in relation to the owner cannot be deemed as a mere possession of the assistant, and that he occupies it as a joint occupant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da16456, 16463 delivered on June 26, 1998). Accordingly, Defendant is accordingly.