A. Defendant B: (a) the real estate listed in Section 2 of the annexed Schedule of Real Estate;

B. Defendant C is of the same real estate.

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Judgment on deemed confession: Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act;

2. Claim against Defendant E

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Judgment by service: Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act;

3. Claim against the defendant B

A. The following facts can be acknowledged in light of the purport of the whole pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 14, and 15.

1) The Plaintiff’s act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the Plaintiff was deposited with Defendant B on January 21, 201, 201, and the Plaintiff was deposited with Defendant B on April 21, 2015, with the approval of the establishment on January 6, 2009, and the approval of the project implementation on November 10, 201, and the approval of the management and disposal plan was publicly notified on March 7, 2013, and on March 14, 2013. 2) The real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table of real estate located within the above rearrangement zone was owned by Defendant B. The Seoul Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal decided to expropriate the above real estate on March 27, 2015 by designating the commencement date of expropriation as May 15, 2015.

B. Article 49(6) of the Act on the Determination of Urban Improvement provides that “When a management and disposal plan is authorized and such public notice has been given, a right holder, such as the owner, lessee, etc. of the previous land or structure, shall not use or benefit from the previous land or structure until the public notice of relocation has been given in accordance with Article 54: Provided, That this shall not apply to the case of a right holder whose compensation has not been completed under Article 40 or the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc

According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff.