The claim of the plaintiff (appointed party) whose exchange is changed in this Court is dismissed.

The total cost of the lawsuit shall be the cost of the lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the designated parties (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”) were owners of the E block sites of D rearrangement projects (hereinafter “instant rearrangement projects”) which are residential environment improvement projects under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), and the network B owned 1 and 2 real estate (hereinafter “each land of this case”) listed in the attached Table 1 and 2 in the said E zone.

B. On March 13, 2018, the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the head of Seodaemun-gu, the foregoing block, was subject to the condition that the Plaintiffs would be entitled to consent to the construction permission (or to secure ownership) for each of the instant land before the approval for the use of the building, or that the construction may be subject to a claim for sale under Article 17-2 of the Building Act, by designating the Plaintiffs as the project owner with respect to the construction work of constructing a collective housing of 6,375.37 square meters in the underground floor, 7, 3, and total floor area of 6,375.37 square meters (hereinafter “instant construction work”).

C. On August 25, 2019, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on December 23, 2019 with respect to each of the instant lands due to the inheritance by agreement division.

[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6 (including virtual numbers), and the fact inquiry results to the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office of the first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Considering the public nature of the instant rearrangement project and the circumstances under which all the Plaintiffs except the Defendant agreed to the instant construction, etc., deeming the block as a single site, the Plaintiffs should be deemed able to exercise the right to claim sale under Article 17-2 of the Building Act against the Defendant who owns each of the instant land included in the block.

Since the plaintiffs expressed their intent to make a claim for sale by serving a written application for modification of the purport of the claim of this case on the plaintiffs, the defendant is above the land of this case.