1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B is the building listed in the attached Table 1 list;

B. Defendant C shall be the building listed in Section 1 of the attached Table 2.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association whose business area covers Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H Japan, including the site of each building listed in the attached list pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

B. The head of Seongbuk-gu Office shall approve the management and disposal plan of the plaintiff on February 24, 2017 and the same year.

3.2. Public notice was given, and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal rendered a ruling of expropriation on August 25, 2017, with the starting date of expropriation as of October 20, 2017.

C. On October 18, 2017, after the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff deposited the compensation for losses and additional charges for delay in the adjudication of expropriation with Defendant B, C, and G as the depositee.

The current status of occupation of the defendant 1 B attached Form 1, the owner of the building listed in attached Form 2 C 2, attached Table 2, attached Table 3D 2, the lessee of the building listed in attached Table 2, attached Table 2, attached Table 4, attached Table 4, attached Table 5 F. 2, attached Table 5, the lessee of the building listed in attached Table 2, attached Table 5, 3.

D. The Defendants, as the owners or lessees of each of the buildings listed in the separate sheet listed in the separate sheet listed in the above project zone, occupy each of the buildings listed in the separate sheet listed in the separate sheet listed below.

[Ground of recognition] Defendant D, E, and F: The fact that there is no dispute over Defendant B, C, and G: Each entry and the purport of the whole pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including paper numbers)

2. According to the facts based on the determination, insofar as the Plaintiff received the authorization of a management and disposal plan under the provisions of the Urban Improvement Act, the use and profit-making of the right holder, such as the former owner, lessee, etc., is suspended pursuant to Article 49(3) and (6) of the Urban Improvement Act. Therefore, the Defendants, who directly and indirectly occupy the buildings in the business area, are obliged to deliver the portion of possession by each Defendant to the Plaintiff, as described in the Disposition 1 of the said

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da22094 Decided December 22, 1992, and Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635 Decided May 27, 2010, etc.).