(a) Defendant B shall submit the attached Form No. 1 building; (b)

The defendantC shall set forth the attached Form No. 2, and C.

On April 27, 2010, the Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association that has obtained authorization to establish an association from the head of Seongbuk-gu Office pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

The defendantB is the owner and possessor of the building in attached Form 1, the defendantC is the owner and possessor of the building in attached Form 2, and the defendantD is the owner and possessor of the building in attached Form 3.

(hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant buildings” in total, including the above real estate owned or occupied by the Defendants. The head of Seongbuk-gu authorizing the Plaintiff to implement the project on November 26, 2013, and publicly notifying the Plaintiff on December 3, 2013, and approving the management and disposal plan on March 18, 2016, and publicly notifying it on March 24, 2016.

On October 28, 2016, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal rendered a ruling to expropriate each of the instant buildings and attached facilities for the said rearrangement project.

Therefore, before the commencement date of expropriation ( December 16, 2016), the Plaintiff deposited the Defendants as the deposited parties, and deposited the compensation determined by the above adjudication.

【Non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including a branch number), and the purport of the entire pleadings, but the above-mentioned facts revealed that the plaintiff acquired the ownership of each of the buildings of this case by depositing compensation for expropriation. Thus, the defendants are obligated to deliver the part of their possession among each of the buildings of this case to the plaintiff.

On the other hand, the defendants asserted that they were unable to comply with the plaintiff's request due to the failure to receive resettlement funds, housing relocation expenses, and directors' expenses.

However, comprehensively taking account of the purport of evidence No. 12-1 and No. 12-2, the Plaintiff’s deposit of KRW 18,678,230, such as the settlement money, etc. for Defendant C on March 17, 2017 and the settlement money, etc. for Defendant D on March 17, 2017. Thus, the above assertion by Defendant C and D is without merit.

In addition, it is against the owner of a building under the Urban Improvement Act.