1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B shall have the branch of the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 list;

B. Defendant C shall be listed in the attached Table 1.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 22, 2012, the Plaintiff is the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the head of the Gu, and the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association which obtained authorization for establishment pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

B. On December 20, 2013, the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Northern District Office publicly notified the Plaintiff’s authorization to implement the project on May 27, 2016, publicly notified the authorization to revise the project implementation, and on December 29, 2017, approved the management and disposition plan (hereinafter “the instant authorization to implement the project”), and publicly notified on January 12, 2018.

C. The Defendants possess each of the real estate listed in Paragraph (1) of this Article located within the project implementation district.

On October 12, 2018, according to the ruling of expropriation by the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Plaintiff deposited the Defendants as depositee and deposited the compensation for losses respectively.

[Ground of recognition] For Defendant C, D, E, F, and G: Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including, if any, a serial number) and the whole purport of the pleading, as to the remaining Defendants: Confession

2. Determination

A. When a public notice of a management and disposal plan stipulated in the Act on the Determination of the Grounds for Claims is given, the use and profit-making by right holders, such as owners, superficies, persons having a right to lease, and lessees 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). Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to deliver each real estate stipulated in Paragraph (1) of the disposition, which the Defendants acquired the right to use and profit in accordance with the public notice of the management

B. The Defendants did not receive any business compensation in determining the assertion of Defendant C, D, E, F, and G

In the event of directors, it is proper that the test cost should be borne or a large amount of expenses should be borne.