A. Defendant B: (a) the buildings listed in paragraph 2 of the attached list;

B. Defendant C shall set out in attached list 3.

A. (1) The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and improvement project association that has obtained approval for the establishment of the association from the head of Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

(2) The Plaintiff obtained authorization for project implementation on August 25, 201 from the head of Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, including each building listed in attached Tables 5 and 12, and obtained authorization for project implementation on January 3, 201, and obtained authorization for project implementation on October 17, 2013, and obtained authorization for project implementation amendment on July 30, 2015, and was published around that time.

(3) Defendant E is the owner of the building listed in the separate sheet No. 5, and Defendant F is the owner of each building listed in the separate sheet No. 12.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including each number), Gap evidence 5-5 and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Comprehensively taking account of the above facts acknowledged as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants whose use or profit-making has been suspended as the owner of each of the above buildings pursuant to the above public notice of approval of the management and disposition plan is obligated to deliver the pertinent building to the Plaintiff who lawfully acquired the right to use or profit-making of each of the above

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da62561, Jul. 24, 2014).

(1) As to the Defendants’ assertion, Defendant E asserts that the name of the building should be carried out by a court deposit, not by a trade union, but by a trade union, and that it is filed with the Defendant to permit the date of directors for three months from the deposit date to the transfer date. However, this is difficult to accept as long as the duty to deliver the building to the Plaintiff is recognized as above.

(2) Meanwhile, Defendant F is currently holding ownership of the building listed in the attached Table No. 12, as the sales contract with the Plaintiff was lawfully terminated.