(a) Defendant B and C are real estate listed in the separate sheet;

B. Defendant D shall set forth in the separate sheet No. 2.

A. The Plaintiff Association is a reconstruction association established for the purpose of removing the F apartment and G apartment located in the area of 39,145 square meters in the Namyang-si, Namyang-si, E, and constructing a new apartment on the land. The Defendants are lessees who leased and occupy each real estate indicated in the order from the owners of the above F and G apartment.

B. On January 20, 201, the Namyang-si market publicly announced the 39,145 square meters of E Il-won in Nam-si, Namyang-si as a zone for housing reconstruction improvement.

(H.C. c. of Namyang-ju)

Plaintiff

On December 29, 2011, the association obtained the authorization to establish the association from the Namyang-ju market, obtained the authorization to implement the project from the Namyang-ju market on December 14, 2016, and obtained the authorization to implement the project from the Namyang-ju market on September 25, 2017.

【Ground for Recognition: Each description of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including all branch numbers, if any)

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

(a) Defendant D: Judgment made by deemed confession (Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act);

B. When the authorization of the management and disposal plan is announced, the owners, superficies, lease right holders, etc. of the previous land or buildings cannot use or profit from the previous land or buildings until the date of the public announcement of relocation under Article 81 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents. Thus, the above Defendants are obligated to deliver the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 to the Plaintiff association, which is the implementer of the urban environment rearrangement project, to the Plaintiff

Meanwhile, the above Defendants asserted to the effect that “it is not possible to deliver the above real estate to their children, who are the owners of the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 list,” but this is not a matter that can be asserted by the Defendants, who are not owners of the above real estate. Therefore, there is no room to accept it.

3. Conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is reasonable.