1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant C, respectively, shall provide the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, and the separate sheet No. 2.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association established pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) to implement housing redevelopment improvement projects in a multi-family housing unit of 11,319 square meters in Jung-gu, Seoul

B. On August 31, 2010, the Plaintiff obtained authorization from the head of the Gu for establishment and completed the registration of incorporation.

C. Since then, the Plaintiff received authorization to implement the project on February 3, 2012 from the head of the Gu, and the authorization to implement the project on November 28, 2014, respectively, and the authorization to implement the project was publicly notified on December 3, 2014.

On the other hand, Defendant B owns and occupies the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 list in the instant improvement zone, and Defendant C owns and occupies the real estate listed in the attached Table 2 list.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 4, 6, and 9, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination

A. According to Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas, when the above management and disposal plan is publicly announced, the owners, superficies, lease right holders, etc. of the previous land or buildings lose their rights to use and benefit from lease. Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to deliver each of the pertinent real estate to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

B. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim due to the completion of compensation for loss. However, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 21 and 22, the Defendants, which was resolved at the ordinary meeting of the Plaintiff Union on March 20, 2015, prepared a written promise to apply for parcelling-out with respect to “the case of approving the status of a partner at the time of application for parcelling-out to be carried out after the completion of the project,” which read “the case of approving the status of a partner at the time of application for parcelling-out to be carried out after the completion of the project,” which reads “the case of applying for parcelling-out at the time of receipt of the application for parcelling-out to be carried out after the completion of the project, and the status of a partner shall be restored