1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B indicated in the attached Form 1 on the fourth floor of the real estate indicated in the attached Form 1, which indicated in the attached Form 7, 4, 5, 6.

1. Claim against Defendant B and D

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

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

2. Claim against Defendant C

A. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 6 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), the owner of the land, etc., whose implementation area for the rearrangement project (hereinafter “the instant rearrangement project”), including part (a) of 19.83 square meters in the ship connected each point of the 4 floors of the real estate indicated in the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 7, and 1 among the 4 floors of the real estate indicated in the attached Table No. 1 pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), is the owner of the land, etc. who has obtained registration for the rearrangement project of Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and obtained authorization for the implementation of the rearrangement project of this case on Oct. 27, 2008, and obtained authorization for the implementation of the rearrangement project of this case from the Dongdaemun-gu Office, the competent authority, and the fact that

B. Article 49(6) of the Act on the Determination of the Grounds for Claims provides that when a management and disposal plan is authorized and such public notice is given, a right holder, such as the owner or lessee of the previous land or structure, shall not use or benefit from the previous land or structure until the public notice of relocation is given under Article 54.

Therefore, Defendant C is obligated to deliver to the Plaintiff who acquired the right to use and benefit from the instant real estate as the project implementer.

C. Regarding the determination of Defendant C’s assertion, Defendant C’s assertion is not a legitimate project implementer, but also invalid in the authorization of the project implementation and the authorization of the management and disposal plan. Therefore, Defendant C’s assertion is without merit.

In conclusion, Defendant C, among the 4 floors of the real estate indicated in the attached Form 1, indicated in the attached Form 1, indicated in the attached Form 2, 2, 3, 7, and 1, respectively.