A. Defendant B: the real estate listed in Section 1 of the attached Table;

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

A. The Plaintiff is an association established pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) to implement a redevelopment project (hereinafter “instant project”) within the Changwon-si Jilwon-gu, Changwon-si (103,621.76 square meters).

B. On December 15, 2015, the Plaintiff established a management and disposal plan by receiving applications for parcelling-out from the owners of land, etc. in the instant project zone, and the Changwon Mayor approved the Plaintiff’s management and disposal plan and publicly notified it on December 15,

(hereinafter referred to as “instant notice”). C.

The Defendants, as owners of each real estate listed in the separate sheet in the improvement zone (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”), possess each of the instant real estate. D.

On the other hand, the defendants are eligible for cash settlement without applying for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Defendant H and I’s determination as to Defendant H and I’s defense prior to the instant lawsuit was filed against Defendant H and I prior to the instant lawsuit. As such, Defendant H and I’s claim against Defendant H and I in the instant lawsuit was unlawful as a duplicate lawsuit. As such, Defendant H and I’s defense against the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

Therefore, in addition to the purport of the entire argument in the statement Nos. 1-2 and 1-2 of this case, it is recognized that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant H and I for requesting the delivery of real estate (Seoul District Court Decision 2017Da106346, 2017Kadan10644, hereinafter “the previous lawsuit in this case”) before the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case. However, in addition to the purport of the whole argument in each statement No. 1-1 and No. 2 of the evidence No. 1-2, the real estate for which the plaintiff seeks to deliver to Defendant H and I in the previous lawsuit in this case is a real estate separate from the real estate for which the plaintiff seeks to deliver to Defendant H and I in this case. Thus, the part of the plaintiff’s claim against Defendant H and I among the lawsuit in this case in this case is also recognized.