A. Defendant B is the building listed in the attached Table 1 list;

B. Defendant C shall be the building listed in the attached Table 2.

A. The Plaintiff is a project implementer for the redevelopment and rearrangement of housing units in AAB promotion zone (hereinafter “instant project”); Defendant 1 is the real estate indicated in the attached Table 1; Defendant 2 is the real estate listed in the attached Table 2; and Defendant 3 is the respective owners of the real estate listed in the attached Table 3.

(hereinafter referred to as "each of the above real estates"). Each of the above real estates is located in the business area of this case.

B. On May 10, 2018, the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant management and disposition plan”) issued a notice of authorization for the instant project.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, and 3-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. When the determination of the cause of the claim and the announcement of the authorization of the management and disposal plan under Article 78(4) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents is made, the use and profit of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leaseer, etc. of the previous land or building, shall be suspended pursuant to Article 81(1) of the same Act, and the project implementer may use and profit from the former land or building (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). Therefore, the Defendants whose use and profit as the owner has been suspended pursuant to the announcement of the authorization

3. The Defendants asserts that the determination of the Defendants’ assertion may not respond to the Plaintiff’s request for delivery of the building because the compensation determined in the adjudication of acceptance is too low.

In full view of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 6, on October 26, 2018, there was a ruling of expropriation of each of the instant real estate (including the site) on October 26, 2018 (the starting date of expropriation was December 14, 2018), each of the compensation determined by the said ruling of expropriation (Defendant B), and KRW 1,212,573,390 (Defendant B), 564,61,090 (Defendant C), 635,414,780 (Defendant D).