A. Defendant B each point of the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of the real estate listed in attached Form 1, among the real estate listed in attached Table 1.

A. The Plaintiff, a project implementer of a renewal acceleration zone, was authorized by the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government for project implementation around September 2014 and a management and disposal plan around November 2015.

B. The approval of the management and disposal plan was announced to the Haman on November 2015 (the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Notice D).

C. The Defendants occupy each part of the building included in the project implementation district of the AA renewal promotion zone, as stated in paragraph (1).

[Reasons for Recognition] Defendant B: Defendant C: The absence of dispute, entry of evidence A as to subparagraphs 1 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants whose use and profit-making on the part corresponding to the above building has been suspended pursuant to the main sentence of Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, barring any special circumstance, are obligated to deliver the pertinent part of the building to the Plaintiff who lawfully acquired the right

B. Defendant C’s assertion asserts that the Plaintiff could not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim due to the Plaintiff’s failure to pay compensation for confinement.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 8 and 9, it is recognized that the Plaintiff deposited the compensation for Defendant C’s expropriation ruling on August 28, 2017.

Defendant C’s assertion is rejected.

3. Conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is accepted in entirety.