A. Defendant B received KRW 30,000,000 from the Plaintiff and simultaneously entered in the separate sheet No. 1.

A. The Plaintiff is an urban environment rearrangement project association whose urban environment rearrangement project zone covers the Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu F Group.

The Defendants respectively leased and occupy the real estate indicated in the order of the Plaintiff’s improvement project implementation zone.

B. On July 26, 2012, the head of Mapo-gu Office: (a) granted authorization for the implementation of an urban environment rearrangement project by the Plaintiff; and (b) granted authorization for a management and disposal plan on July 7, 2015; and (c) granted

7. 9. The notice was made.

C. On February 26, 2016, upon the Plaintiff’s request, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal rendered a ruling of expropriation for the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 list, the date of commencement of expropriation as of April 15, 2016.

The Plaintiff deposited the total sum of KRW 15,327,700 for the compensation for losses under the above confinement ruling to Defendant D, who is subject to the compensation for loss (resident relocation expenses and director expenses) among the Defendants.

(5) On May 30, 2016, this Court No. 2016-2544 of this Court). 【Ground for Recognition】 A without dispute, each entry (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendants, the lessee of real estate located within the district where the plaintiff's improvement project was implemented, lost the right to use and profit from the leased property, and the plaintiff acquired the right to use and profit from the leased property. Thus, the defendants are obligated to deliver each real estate mentioned in the disposition to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendants asserted that “the Plaintiff’s members filed an application for dissolution of the Plaintiff with the head of Mapo-gu and filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the return disposition, so they cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim.” However, the evidence presented in this case alone cannot be deemed to be null and void as the head of Mapo-gu Office’s return disposition cannot be deemed null and void. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s administrative litigation was instituted.