1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B is the building listed in the attached Table 1 list;

B. Defendant C shall be the building listed in the attached Table 2.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a project implementer of A Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project (hereinafter “instant project”); Defendant B is a building listed in the attached Table 1; Defendant C is a building listed in the attached Table 2; Defendant D is a person who occupies a building listed in the attached Table 3; and Defendant D is a person who continues his/her business while occupying a building listed in the attached Table 3.

Attached Form

Each building entered in the list is located in the business area of this case.

B. On May 10, 2018, the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant management and disposition plan”) issued a notice of authorization for the instant project.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. When the determination of the cause of the claim and the public notice of the authorization of the management and disposal plan under Article 78(4) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents is given, the use and profit of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leaseer, etc. of the previous land or building, shall be suspended, and the project implementer may use and profit from the former land or building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). As seen earlier, the public notice of the authorization of the management and disposal plan was given, the Defendants are obligated to deliver each building listed

3. As to the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants asserted that the determination of the Defendants’ assertion is the state in which they filed an objection, but this is not a justifiable ground for preventing the Plaintiff’s claim for delivery of the building (Article 88 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects), and the Defendants asserted that each building listed in the separate sheet is to be used until December 31, 2019, and that the agreement with the Plaintiff was completed. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it

4. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is with merit, and it is ordered to accept it.