1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B, among the 1st floor of the building listed in attached Form 1’s list of real estate in attached Form 1, indicated in attached Form 2(a), b. c.

In addition to the purport of the entire argument in the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including the number of each item), the plaintiff is a cooperative established pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter "Urban Improvement Act"), and each real estate listed in the real estate list in the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter "each real estate in this case") belongs to the improvement zone, and the original city Mayor authorized the management and disposal plan of the plaintiff on May 29, 2017 and publicly announced it pursuant to Article 78 of the Urban Improvement Act. The defendants are the lessee of each part ordering each performance of each of the real estate in this case, who is the owner of each of the real estate in this case.

On the other hand, in cases where the competent administrative agency publicly announced an approval plan for the management and disposal of a cooperative, the owner, superficies, leaseer, etc. of the previous land or building cannot use or profit from the land or building until the date of the public announcement of transfer under Article 86 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, and the project implementer can use or profit from the land or building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Da62561, Jul. 24, 2014; 2012Da62578, Jul. 24, 2014). The Defendants who occupy and use each of the instant real estate as the lessee of each of the instant real estate are obligated to hand over the Plaintiff who acquired the right to use or benefit from each of the instant real estate,

Therefore, since the plaintiff's respective claims against the defendants of this case are reasonable, all of them shall be accepted.