A. Defendant B: the real estate listed in Section 1 of [Attachment];

B. Defendant C shall set out in attached list 1.

A. On September 9, 2008, the Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association that obtained authorization for the establishment of a project under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

B. The head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly notified the Plaintiff’s project implementation authorization on March 20, 2014; publicly notified the project implementation authorization on October 13, 2015; and on March 31, 2016, approved the management and disposition plan (hereinafter “the instant management and disposition plan”); and publicly notified the same on the same day.

C. Defendant B is an owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 in the project implementation district and Defendant D occupies the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 as the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2. Defendant C is a person subject to cash liquidation who did not consent to the redevelopment improvement project of the Plaintiff. Defendant C is a lessee and occupation of the part indicated in the order No. 1(b) from Defendant B, an employer, Defendant E is a lessee and an occupant of the part indicated in the order No. 1(d) and the part indicated in the Disposition No.

The Plaintiff deposited the full amount of land compensation, obstacles compensation, and late payment charges due to the above expropriation ruling by the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on July 27, 2018, on September 12, 2018, on which Defendant D, E, and F were deposited as the principal deposit, and on September 13, 2018, Defendant B was deposited as the principal deposit.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 6 (including additional number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination

A. The Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da22094 Decided December 22, 1992, and Supreme Court Decision 91Da22094 Decided the cause of the claim, when a public notice of the management and disposal plan stipulated in the Act on the Determination of Urban Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions is given, the use and profit-making by the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, leasee, etc., of the previous land or buildings, shall be suspended, and the project implementer may use and benefit from