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

B. Defendant C shall be listed in [Attachment] Section 2.

(a) The plaintiff as a party: The defendants of the project implementer A's redevelopment improvement project (hereinafter "project of this case"): The owner or lessee of each building specified in the separate sheet located in the project area of this case;

B. The head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on March 30, 2017, the public notice of approval of the management and disposal plan.

C. On May 10, 2019, May 15, 2019, Defendant C: (a) on the date of deposit of the commencement date of expropriation of the adjudication of expropriation by the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on March 22, 2019; (b) Defendant C on November 1, 2048, 211, 960 won on November 14, 2019; (c) Defendant D on November 22, 2019, on the date of deposit of the commencement date of expropriation of the adjudication of expropriation by the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City; and (d) the purport of the entire pleadings, including the fact that there is no dispute as to the fact that there is no ground for recognition; and (d) evidence Nos. 3, 5, 6, and 8 (including the serial number) of each of the pleadings. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24817, Nov. 14, 2019>

2. When the approval of a management and disposal plan is publicly announced pursuant to Article 49(3) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017), the use and profit of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leaseer, etc. of the previous land or structure, shall be suspended pursuant to Article 49(6) of the same Act, and the project implementer may use and profit from the plan (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). As seen earlier, the public notice of the approval of the management and disposal plan regarding the instant project was given, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are obligated to deliver each building listed in the attached Table to

3. As to the determination of Defendant C and D’s assertion, the compensation determined by the expropriation ruling is insufficient, and the Defendants filed an objection against the above expropriation ruling. Thus, they cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s request for delivery of the building until the conclusion of the adjudication. However, the mere fact that the procedure of the adjudication or administrative litigation is pending cannot prevent the Plaintiff’s claim for delivery of the building. Thus, the land, etc. for public works.