1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B: (a) the real estate listed in the Appendix No. 1;

B. Defendant C and D are listed in the attached Table 2.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 31, 2014, the head of Seongdong-gu recognized and publicly notified the modification of the management and disposal plan pursuant to Article 49 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (the location and size of the zone: 35,827 square meters) with respect to the A Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project (the location and size of the zone): the Plaintiff,

B. Defendant B owned and possessed the real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 (hereinafter “real estate 1”). Defendant C and D, the married couple, occupy the real estate 2 while sharing 1/2 shares of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet 2 (hereinafter “second real estate”). Each of the above real estate is located within the said rearrangement project zone, and the Defendants, as members of the association, applied for parcelling-out to the Plaintiff.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 4-6, 9, 13, Eul 1, 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to Article 49(3) and (6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, when a management and disposal plan is approved pursuant to Article 49(2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents and its contents are publicly announced in the official gazette of the local government that approved the plan, the owner 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 under Article 54 of the same

As seen earlier, the Defendants, the owners of the first and second real estate located within the said rearrangement project zone, as the management and disposal plan was authorized and publicly announced as seen earlier, are obligated to deliver each real estate indicated in the order to the Plaintiff, the project implementer.

B. As to Defendant B’s assertion, Defendant B’s management and disposition plan is null and void, such as the Plaintiff’s management and disposition plan evaluation of real estate owned by the said Defendant is extremely low, and the said Defendant should pay excessive additional contributions.