1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant C: The real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1;

B. The defendant (Appointed Party) B shall list the annexed sheet 3.

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the plaintiff's claim, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 14 (including evidence with a serial number), the facts identical to the reasons for the claim in the attached Form can be acknowledged.

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff may request the defendants, the defendant (appointed party) and the appointed party who possess each real estate listed in the annexed real estate list unless there are special circumstances.

If such special circumstances exist, the legitimacy of the defense will be examined below.

As to the defenses of the Defendant (Appointed Party), the Defendant (Appointed Party) has the right to receive resettlement funds, relocation expenses, and director expenses, which are compensation for loss, and may refuse to deliver until such compensation for loss is completed. The Defendant (Appointed Party) has the prior performance defense.

There is no proof of the defendant (appointed party) to support the assertion that the claim for the relocation of the defendant (appointed party) and the appointed party had occurred.

This part of the defense is not reasonable.

The Defendant (Appointed Party) and the appointed parties are not clearly disputed by the Plaintiff, and the relocation funds, relocation funds, dwelling relocation expenses, and movable property transfer expenses constitute compensation for losses under the Public Works Act as referred to in the proviso of Article 81(1)2 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, and the defense that the delivery would be refused until the payment is made is essentially a prior performance defense, and the appeal that the delivery would not be prohibited from exercising the right of defense in civil action is re-arguable by the Incheon District Court Decision 2018Da225660 decided Oct. 31, 2018.

According to the evidence Nos. 15 and evidence Nos. 16-2, the Plaintiff’s deposit and payment of the relevant movable property transfer cost in consultation with the Plaintiff on January 24, 2019 and February 7, 2019 can be recognized as having completed such compensation for loss.

The plaintiff's second defense is.