A. Defendant B: (a) the buildings listed in the attached Table 1 list;

B. Defendant C is a building listed in Appendix 2 List 1.

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association whose business area covers Seongbuk-gu Seoul Sung-gu Seoul JJ party, including the site of each building listed in the separate sheet in accordance with 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 Office approves the Plaintiff’s management and disposal plan on February 24, 2017; and

3. 2. The Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal publicly announced this, and rendered a ruling of expropriation on August 25, 2017 with the commencement date of expropriation as of October 20, 2017.

C. On October 19, 2017 and October 20, 2017, after the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff deposited each of the compensation for losses under the above confinement ruling with Defendant B, C, G, and H as a depositee. The Defendants were refusing to comply with the Plaintiff’s request for delivery while occupying each of the buildings listed in the main text of paragraph (1) of the above project area.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings (defendant B, D, E, I: Confession)

2. According to the above facts of recognition, as long as the Plaintiff received the public notice of approval for a management and disposal plan under the provisions of the Urban Improvement Act, the use and profit-making of the right holder, such as the owner, lessee, etc. of the previous building pursuant to Article 49(3) and (6) of the Urban Improvement Act is suspended, so the Defendants, who possess the building in the business area, are obliged to deliver the part of possession by each Defendant to the Plaintiff, as described in the Disposition

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da22094, Dec. 22, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). 3. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants against the Defendants is justified and acceptable in entirety.