1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B: The real estate listed in the Schedule No. 1;

B. Defendant C is among the real estate listed in the attached Table 4.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and the purport of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5-3 and evidence Nos. 7-2 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff established for the purpose of the redevelopment project under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents on January 12, 2018 and announced the same date after obtaining authorization of the management and disposal plan on January 12, 2018. The Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff on the ground of expropriation as of December 8, 2017 in the attached Tables 1 and 4 located within the project implementation district on January 30, 2018. The Defendant B occupied the first building as the mother of the former owner of the building listed in the attached Tables 1 (hereinafter referred to as “one building”) and the fact that the Defendant C occupies occupies two floors among the buildings listed in the attached Tables 4 (hereinafter referred to as “building 4”) and the owner and profit-making of the land or the building (see, 205.

2. As Defendant B’s defense did not receive KRW 1,030,988 from the Plaintiff, Defendant B argued to the effect that it cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim of this case (the preparatory document dated March 7, 2019). However, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 947,485 as the principal deposit on April 8, 2019 (referring to the document dated April 10, 2019), and there is insufficient evidence to support the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the director’s expenses additionally to Defendant B (i.e., KRW 83,503 (= KRW 1,030,988-947,485). In addition, if there is a dispute regarding the amount of director’s expenses or payment items, it is necessary to dispute with Defendant B as a public law right. Therefore, Defendant B’s above.