The Plaintiff

A. Defendant B: The real estate listed in the annexed Form 1 No. 1

B. Defendant C shall have the real estate set forth in Appendix 2.

According to the evidence in Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 5, it is recognized that the reasons for the claim are stated in the attached Form No. 1.

Thus, the defendants have the duty to deliver each of the real estate listed in the attached Table to the plaintiff, who is the implementer of the rearrangement project, pursuant to Article 81 (1) of the Urban and Residential Environment Rearrangement Act.

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. Defendant C’s assertion of the difference in the possession portion of Defendant C is alleged to the effect that the Plaintiff does not occupy 129.79m2 prior to the real estate indicated in the attached Table 2, for which the Plaintiff seeks to transfer, but only possess 9.79m2 among them. However, according to the evidence No. 11, the Plaintiff filed an application against Defendant C for a disposition against Defendant C with respect to all of the real estate recorded in the attached Table No. 2019m2 as the attached Table No. 53506, Jan. 29, 2020, and the execution thereof was completed on February 13, 2020. Thus, Defendant C’s above assertion is rejected.

B. The Defendants asserted that the Defendants did not accept the Defendants’ compensation for losses, and that the Defendants did not have a duty to deliver each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet until the Plaintiff completed the Defendants’ compensation for business losses.

However, according to the evidence evidence evidence Nos. 6 and 7, there was a ruling to accept the above Defendants, and the Plaintiff deposited the amount determined in the ruling to expropriate the said Defendants as a trustor around August 2020. As long as the Plaintiff deposited the compensation for losses caused by the adjudication to expropriate the said Defendants, it shall be deemed that the compensation for losses under the Public Interest Business Act was completed even if the Defendant sought the increase of the compensation through administrative litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da40097, Aug. 22, 2013). Thus, the above assertion by the Defendants is rejected.

(c)

In determining the simultaneous performance defenses of Defendant B, C, and E, the said Defendants shall receive the deposit of lease from the lessor.