1. The Plaintiff:

(a) Defendant B shall have the real property listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2;

B. Defendant C and D shall be as specified in attached Table 3, 3.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an association established to implement a housing redevelopment improvement project (hereinafter “instant project”) on a housing redevelopment project with a size of 48,085,40 square meters in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, with authorization to establish an association on July 29, 2009;

8.21. The registration of incorporation shall be completed.

The instant project was approved and publicly notified on January 18, 2016.

B. Defendant B is the owner of each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 located in the instant project zone. Defendant C and D are the co-owners of each real estate listed in paragraphs 3 and 4, and Defendant E is the owner of each real estate listed in paragraphs 5 and 6.

【Defendant B, E: The fact that there is no dispute over the defendant C, and D who made a confession

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, the defendants lose their right to use and benefit from each real estate listed in the separate sheet pursuant to Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents. Thus, barring special circumstances, the project implementer of this case is obligated to deliver each of the real estate owned to

B. As to this, Defendant C and D alleged to the effect that they cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim until the compensation for damages for the said Defendants’ co-owned real property is completed, so if the purport of the entire pleadings is added to each of the items listed in Articles 3 and 4, 695,690,390 won (Defendant C14,263,50 won, Defendant D681,426,890 won), and the starting date of expropriation from the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on June 24, 2016, the sum of compensation for each of the items listed in the attached Tables 3 and 4).

8. A ruling of expropriation made on December 1, 199, and the fact that the above amount of compensation was deposited on November 1, 191, Defendant C, and D. Accordingly, the compensation for the said Defendants was completed.

As such, the above assertion by Defendant C and D is without merit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da40097, Aug. 22, 2013).

3. If so, Defendant B, each of the real estate listed in [Attachment 1, 2], Defendant C, and D, and Defendant E, respectively.