A. Defendant B: (a) the buildings listed in paragraph 1 of the attached list;

B. Defendant C shall set out in attached list 2.

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and maintenance project association whose business area covers Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G G pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), and each building listed in the attached list is located within the above business area.

B. The Plaintiff obtained authorization from the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to establish an association on April 27, 2010, and authorization to implement a project on November 26, 2013, respectively, and on March 18, 2016, the Plaintiff’s management and disposition plan was approved and thereafter approved.

3. 24. The plan was published.

C. As the owner, Defendant B is the owner of the building listed in paragraph 1 of the attached list; Defendant C is the building listed in paragraph 2 of the attached list; Defendant D is the building listed in paragraph 3 of the attached list; Defendant E is the building listed in paragraph 4 of the attached list; and Defendant F is the possession of the building listed in paragraph 5 of the attached list.

On October 28, 2016, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal rendered a ruling of expropriation on December 16, 2016, with the date of commencement of expropriation as of December 16, 2016. On December 8, 2016, the Plaintiff deposited the Defendants as their respective depositors and deposited the full amount of compensation for each Defendant as stipulated in the above ruling.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 6 evidence (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is an implementer for whom the approval of the management and disposal plan under the provisions of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and the defendants occupy each building listed in the attached list in the improvement zone. When the management and disposal plan is authorized and publicly notified pursuant to Article 49(3) and (6) of the Act, the use and profit-making of the right holder, such as the owner and lessee of the previous building, etc., is suspended. Thus, the plaintiff who became entitled to use and profit-making the above building due to the above public notice of approval, the defendant Eul, the building listed in the attached list No. 1, the defendant Eul, the building listed in the attached list No. 2, the building listed in the attached list No. 3, the building listed