1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B: (a) the buildings listed in Section 1 of [Attachment I];

B. Defendant C is listed in Appendix 1 List 2.

Basic Facts

On February 26, 2009, the Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment project association that obtained authorization to establish an association (hereinafter referred to as “instant association authorization”) under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the “Urban Improvement Act”) from the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as “Seoul Seongbuk-gu Seoul”) on the project implementation district with the size of 1

The Defendants are the owners or occupants of each building listed in the Disposition No. 1 located in the project implementation district.

The head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly announced the project implementation authorization on June 20, 2013 to the Plaintiff, and publicly announced the project implementation authorization on September 25, 2014 and January 22, 2015 (hereinafter “instant project implementation authorization”). On February 24, 2017, the management and disposal plan was authorized (hereinafter “instant management and disposal plan”), and was publicly announced on March 2, 2017.

On August 25, 2017, the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City rendered a ruling of expropriation on October 20, 2017, with the commencement date of expropriation as of October 20, 2017. On October 19, 2017, and October 20, 2017, the Plaintiff deposited the compensation for losses and additional dues as stipulated in the above ruling of expropriation, respectively.

【Defendant E’s ground for recognition: When a public notice of the approval of the management and disposal plan under Article 49(3) of the former Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017) is given as to the fact that there is no dispute over the remaining Defendants: Gap’s statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 5 and 7 (including each number), the purport of the entire pleadings as to the Plaintiff’s claim, the determination of the ground for claim is made, the use and profit of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, lessee, etc. of the previous land or buildings shall be suspended, and the project implementer may use and profit from the former land or buildings (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da22094, Dec. 22, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010).