1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B shall have all the strata of the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 list:

B. Defendant C is attached Form 2.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. In fact, the Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and maintenance project partnership under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) which obtained authorization to establish an association from the government market on January 31, 201 in order to implement a housing redevelopment and improvement project (hereinafter “instant improvement project”) with a housing redevelopment and improvement project, the area of which is planned to implement a housing redevelopment and improvement project (hereinafter “instant improvement project”).

The Plaintiff was authorized to establish an association on January 31, 201, the authorization to implement the project on March 31, 2015, and the authorization to implement the project on November 4, 2016, respectively.

On March 31, 2015, the above management and disposal plan was publicly announced as F. Government Notice.

The Defendants occupy each building (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) in the text of paragraph (1) of this Article located within the project implementation district.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the main sentence of Article 49(6) of the Act on the Determination of Urban Improvement, when the approval of a management and disposal plan is publicly announced, a right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leaseer, etc. of the previous land or structure, shall not use or profit from the previous land or structure until the public announcement of relocation is

According to the above legal principles and facts of recognition, the Defendants, who occupied and used the instant building located in the project implementation district of the instant rearrangement project, are obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, the said project implementer, unless there are special circumstances.

2. Defendant D’s argument on Defendant D’s assertion argues to the effect that, as G’s children, the owner of the building listed in the separate sheet No. 3, the above G is subject to cash settlement, Defendant D may refuse the Plaintiff’s request for extradition by the time of receiving compensation.

On the other hand, G does not have any evidence to acknowledge the fact that G is a person subject to cash clearing, and even if so, the above G.