1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B: The real estate listed in the Appendix 1 list;

B. Defendant C shall provide the real estate listed in the annex 2 list.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant B, C, and D

(a)the description of the reasons for the claim is as shown in Appendix 5;

(b) Judgment on deemed confession based on recognition (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

C. According to the theory of lawsuit, Defendant B is obligated to deliver each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, Defendant C is obligated to deliver each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2, and Defendant D is obligated to deliver each real estate listed in

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant E

A. Defendant E asserts to the effect that Defendant E did not have the right to request the extradition of the above real estate because the Plaintiff did not acquire the ownership of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 4, and that Defendant E did not have the standing to file the instant lawsuit.

On the other hand, in a lawsuit for performance, the plaintiff's standing to sue is deemed to be the plaintiff's standing to sue, and the plaintiff's standing to sue is deemed to be the defendant, so the plaintiff's assertion itself does not require the plaintiff's standing to sue, and the plaintiff's plaintiff is the plaintiff's actual right to demand performance or the defendant's actual duty to perform performance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da14797, Jun. 14, 1994). As long as the plaintiff seeks against the defendant Eul to transfer real estate listed in the attached Table 4 pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter "Urban Improvement Act"), the plaintiff's standing to sue shall be recognized. Thus,

B. Basic facts 1) The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s housing redevelopment improvement project (hereinafter “instant project”) with approximately approximately KRW 227,440 square meters in the Dong-gu G in Busan Metropolitan City as its business area.

(2) On July 5, 2018, the head of the Busan Metropolitan City Dong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the “Seoul Metropolitan City Dong-gu government”) authorized the Plaintiff’s management and disposition plan and announced it on July 11, 2018.

3. Defendant B is in the business area of this case as shown in attached Form 1.