1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B shall display an indication of Attached Form 1, 2, 5, 6, and 1 of the real estate listed in Attached Table 1 List 1.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. (1) The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction project association approved by the head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents on September 4, 2008 (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

(2) On June 21, 2013, the Plaintiff obtained authorization from the head of Jungdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to implement the project with the enforcement area of 68,255.8 square meters, and obtained authorization for the management and disposition plan on January 22, 2015. The said management and disposition plan was publicly notified as the F of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Jung-gu public notice.

(3) Each real estate listed in the separate sheet is located within the project implementation district, and Defendant B is currently possessing each of the above parts among the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 1 listed in the separate sheet No. 1, which is located in the separate sheet No. 35.06 square meters in the portion “A” connected with each of the items listed in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 1, and the Defendant C is a lessee of the 82.09 square meters of the branch floor among the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 listed in the separate sheet No. 1,

[Ground for Recognition] Defendant C: The fact that there is no dispute over Defendant C, D: each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including the serial number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants whose use or profit has been suspended as a lessee according to the above management and disposal plan and the public notice, are obligated to deliver the pertinent building portion possessed by the Defendants to the Plaintiff who lawfully acquired the right to use or profit from each of the above building as the project implementer, except in extenuating

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da62561, Jul. 24, 2014). 2. Determination on Defendant C and D’s assertion

A. The Defendants alleged the invalidation of the project implementation plan should present the matters stipulated in Article 41 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions while submitting the proposal of the project implementation plan to the general meeting of the association, but did not present the remaining matters other than the matters concerning Article 41(2)5 of the Act