2. The plaintiff's defendant B, C, D, and F

A. The Plaintiff without dispute is the Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project Association approved by the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government for the purpose of implementing the Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project for the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Housing Group.

On May 7, 2015, the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office approved and publicly announced a management and disposal plan for the plaintiff's housing redevelopment improvement project.

Defendant E is the owner of each real estate listed in attached Tables 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) located in the rearrangement project zone and is subject to cash settlement.

The Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Expropriation Committee, as it did not reach an agreement on compensation for losses on the instant real estate.

On July 24, 2015, on September 11, 2015, the Expropriation Committee decided to expropriate the instant real estate, etc. of Defendant E as KRW 982,681,790 on the date of commencement of expropriation.

On September 8, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited the compensation on the ground that the Defendant refused to receive the compensation determined by the ruling. At that time, the Defendant received the deposit.

B. When the management and disposal plan stipulated in Article 49(3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents is publicly notified as to the duty to deliver Defendant E, the use and profit-making by the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, person holding the superficies, 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, Defendant E is obligated

C. Defendant E’s assertion that Defendant E accepted the instant real estate in accordance with the expropriation ruling, and thus, the Plaintiff can receive the instant real estate through administrative vicarious execution under public law.