A. Defendant B: The real estate listed in the Appendix No. 3;

B. Defendant C and Defendant D shall be listed in attached Table 9, respectively.

A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including paper numbers), the plaintiff is a partnership implementing the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul E Housing Redevelopment Project (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”) under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”); the management and disposal plan concerning the instant rearrangement project was authorized and publicly announced February 2016; the defendant occupies the real estate owner in the attached Table No. 3 located within the instant rearrangement project zone as the owner of the real estate indicated in the attached Table No. 3; the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the compensation of KRW 111,620,940, which was determined by the local Land Tribunal’s decision to expropriate the said real estate owned by the defendant, on December 2016.

B. Article 49 (6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents”) provides that “When approval or announcement of a management and disposal plan has been made, a right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, etc. of the previous land or structure, shall not use or benefit from the previous land or structure until the date of the public announcement of relocation under Article 54: Provided, That the same shall not apply to a right holder whose consent has been obtained from a project implementer or whose compensation has not been completed under Article 40 and the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor.” Accordingly, due to the authorization and public announcement of a management and disposal

In this regard, the defendant argues to the effect that the amount of compensation due to the expropriation ruling is less than the market price, so it cannot accept the plaintiff's claim. This reason is the amount of compensation.