1. The Defendants deliver to the Plaintiff the real estate indicated in the attached list.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association established to implement a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project whose project implementation district covers 62,245.80 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and obtained authorization from the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on May 16, 2008, and was authorized to implement a management and disposal plan on December 8, 2014 pursuant to Article 49(2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”). The head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government announced the above management and disposal plan on March 12, 2015.

B. The Defendants possess each of 1/2 shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and possess the instant real estate as the owner.

C. On January 29, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication of expropriation with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Expropriation Committee, and on March 18, 2016, the said Expropriation Committee decided to expropriate the Defendants’ compensation amounting to KRW 15,50,000, and the date of commencement of expropriation.

Accordingly, on March 16, 2016, the Plaintiff deposited compensation for losses under the above expropriation ruling.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. When the determination of the management and disposal plan regarding the cause of the claim is publicly announced, a right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leaseer, etc. of the previous land or building, cannot use or profit from the previous land or building until the date of public announcement of transfer under Article 54 of the Urban Improvement Act (Article 49(6) of the Urban Improvement Act). According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants occupy the above real estate located within the project implementation district, and thus, they are obligated to deliver the above

B. As to the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants unilaterally pay business compensation to C, a religious facility, without paying a substitute soil, and then bring administrative litigation and review thereon.