2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

A. The Plaintiff refers to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), which was in force at the time of the issue, unless there is a special reference below the Urban Improvement Act.

Pursuant to this, the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association is the business district of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan D D, and is the co-owners and occupants of the buildings listed in the attached Form in the Defendants' business area.

B. The Plaintiff received authorization from the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Office to establish an association on April 27, 2010, and authorization to implement a project on November 26, 2013, respectively, and on March 18, 2016, the Plaintiff’s management and disposal plan was approved and announced on March 24, 2016.

C. On October 28, 2016, upon the Plaintiff’s request, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal rendered a ruling of expropriation on December 16, 2016, with the commencement date of expropriation as of October 28, 2016, and accordingly, the Plaintiff deposited the total amount of the Defendant’s loss as determined by the said ruling on December 14, 2016, with the Defendants as depositee.

[Ground for Recognition]: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1-6 evidence (including more than one number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the premise of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff is an implementer who has received the public notice of approval of the management and disposal plan under the Urban Improvement Act, and the Defendants are co-owners and occupants of the attached building located within the business area. If the management and disposal plan is approved and publicly notified pursuant to Article 49(3) and (6) of the Urban Improvement Act, the use and profit-making of the right holder, such as the owner, lessee, etc. of the previous building, is suspended. Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to deliver the said

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da22094 Decided December 22, 1992, and Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635 Decided May 27, 2010, etc.) B.

(1) The Defendants asserted to the effect that they failed to receive the compensation for losses, but as long as the Plaintiff deposited the loss as stated in the adjudication of expropriation, Article 49 of the Urban Improvement Act.