A. Defendant B is paid KRW 15,000,000 from the Plaintiff and at the same time, written in attached Table 1.

(a) The head of Mapo-gu Office approves the plaintiff's management and disposal plan established for the urban environment rearrangement project on July 7, 2015;

7. 9. The notice was made.

B. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet is located in the rearrangement zone in which the Plaintiff implements the project. Among the real estate listed in the annexed sheet No. 1, Defendant B is located, the part (A) of the attached sheet No. 10 square meters connected to each point of the attached sheet No. 1, 2, 6, 7, and 1 among the real estate listed in the annexed sheet No. 1, Defendant B is located, Defendant C is located in the part (A) of the attached sheet No. 5, 6, 9, 10, and 5 among the two real estate listed in the annexed sheet No. 2 in the annexed sheet No. 1, the part (a) of the ship connecting each point of the attached sheet No. 3 drawings No. 5, 6, 10, and 1, the part (b) of the attached sheet No. 2 in the attached sheet No. 1, and the part (a) connecting each point in the ship with Defendant A is leased to Defendant A Co. 2 in order of 3,45,5,6,808.

[Evidence Evidence: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. According to the allegations by the parties and the facts of the above recognition by this court, the plaintiff is entitled to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents.

() As a project implementer under Article 48-2 (1) of the Act, an existing building in the project site shall be removed in accordance with the management and disposal plan authorized by the project implementer, and the defendants are unable to use or profit from the previous building pursuant to Article 49 (6), and the project implementer is obligated to deliver the pertinent building (owned real estate) to the plaintiff who lawfully acquired the right to use or benefit from the building, except in extenuating circumstances.

As to this, Defendant B and C asserted to the effect that the instant lawsuit violates the proviso of Article 49(6) of the Urban Improvement Act, it is not possible to deliver real estate without compensation, and that the claim for delivery is unreasonable when the compensation procedure is not completed.