(a) Defendant B is a building listed in Section 1 of Annex 1;

B. Defendant C is listed in Appendix 1 List 2.

A. On February 26, 2009, the Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association that obtained authorization to establish an association under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) with the size of 153,501 square meters from the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office as the project implementation district.

B. The Defendants are the owners or occupants of each building described in paragraph (1) of this Article located within the project implementation district.

C. The head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government announced the project implementation authorization on June 20, 2013 to the Plaintiff, and announced the project implementation authorization on September 25, 2014 and January 22, 2015. On February 24, 2017, the head of Seongbuk-gu publicly announced the project implementation authorization on the management and disposition plan (hereinafter “instant management and disposition plan”), and publicly announced on March 2, 2017.

On August 25, 2017, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal rendered a ruling of expropriation as of October 20, 2017, and on October 19, 2017, the Plaintiff deposited the compensation for losses and additional charges as prescribed by the said ruling of expropriation on October 19, 2017, which is prior to the date of commencement of expropriation. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 28440, Oct. 20, 2017; Presidential Decree No. 28457, Oct. 20, 2017>

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 4, 6 through 9 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. When a public notice of a management and disposal plan under Article 49(3) of the Act on the Determination of Grounds for Claim is given, the use and profit-making of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, leasee, etc., of the previous land or buildings shall be suspended pursuant to Article 49(6) of the same Act, and the project implementer may use and profit from the former land or buildings (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da22094, Dec. 22, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to deliver the Plaintiff who acquired the right to use and profit in accordance with the public notice

3. The judgment of Defendant H on Defendant H’s assertion is earlier than the delivery of the occupied portion of the compensation procedure.