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 as a party: The defendants of the project implementer of the Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project in Zone A (hereinafter referred to as the "project in this case"): The tenant of each building in the attached list located in the project area in this case

(b) The head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office on September 6, 2018

C. On September 26, 2019, the Seoul Regional Land Tribunal rendered a ruling of expropriation against the Defendants (compensation for suspension of work) on September 27, 2019: (a) the deposit amount on the date of deposit of compensation from September 26, 2019 on September 26, 2019; (b) Defendant C’s KRW 34,205,000 on September 34, 2019; (c) Defendant DD’s KRW 30,495,00 on September 35, 2019 (direct deposit) KRW 30,25,000 on September 26, 2019 (based on recognition); (d) the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments is written in evidence Nos. 3-2; and (e) Party A’s evidence Nos. 5 through 8.

2. When a public announcement of approval of a 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 with respect to the cause of the claim, 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 shall be entitled to use and profit from the plan (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). As seen earlier, the public announcement of approval of the management and disposal plan regarding the instant project is the same, barring any special circumstance,

3. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

(a) Defendant B: Confession;

(b) Defendant D: Service by public notice;

C. As to Defendant C, E, and Defendants C, and E, are insufficient to compensate as prescribed in the acceptance ruling, and the Defendants filed an objection against the above acceptance ruling, they cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim for delivery of the building until the result of the said ruling. However, the mere fact that the objection procedure or administrative litigation is pending cannot prevent the Plaintiff’s claim for delivery of the building. Thus, public works are not performed.