1. The Plaintiff:

(a) Defendant B and C are buildings listed in the separate sheet No. 1;

B. Defendant D respective buildings listed in the separate sheet No. 2.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Mayor of Busan Metropolitan City on January 11, 2006 designated the Dongdong-gu E as a rearrangement zone.

B. On April 28, 2006, the Plaintiff is an association which registered the establishment of May 2, 2006 after obtaining authorization from the head of Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the “Dong-dong head”) to implement a housing redevelopment project in the above rearrangement zone.

C. The Plaintiff obtained approval from the head of Dong-dong head on May 12, 2010, and obtained approval for the project implementation plan on August 29, 2014, and obtained application for parcelling-out based on the project implementation plan approved for modification as above.

On July 20, 2015, the Plaintiff received the approval of the management and disposal plan from the head of the Dong-dong, and the head of the Dong-dong office publicly notified the details related to the management and disposal plan on July 29, 2015.

E. Defendant B and C are the lessee of the building indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, Defendant D is the lessee of the building listed in the separate sheet No. 2, and each of the above buildings is within the above rearrangement zone.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendants, the lessee, pursuant to Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, are unable to use or profit from each of the above buildings, and the Plaintiff is entitled to use or profit from each of the above buildings as the project implementer. Thus, Defendant B and C are obligated to deliver each of the above buildings listed in the separate sheet No. 1, and Defendant D is obligated to deliver each of the above buildings listed in the separate sheet No. 2.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635 Decided May 27, 2010). B.

The Defendants asserted that the approval of establishment, project implementation plan, management and disposal plan, etc. related to the redevelopment project implemented by the Plaintiff is null and void due to significant and apparent defects.

The evidence presented in this case is examined, but relating to the redevelopment project implemented by the Plaintiff.