1. The plaintiff

(a) Defendant K and C jointly share the buildings listed in paragraph 1 of the attached list of real estate;

B. Defendant D is the same.

1. Facts of premise;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association whose business area covers Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government M&, including the site of each building listed in the attached Table of real estate under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

B. The head of Seongbuk-gu Office shall approve the management and disposal plan of the plaintiff on February 24, 2017 and the same year.

3.2. Public notice was given, and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal rendered a ruling of expropriation on August 25, 2017, with the starting date of expropriation as of October 20, 2017.

C. On October 19, 2017, after the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff deposited compensation for losses in accordance with the adjudication of acceptance by designating the person subject to compensation for losses as the person subject to compensation for losses. The Defendants directly and indirectly occupied each part of the main text of paragraph (1) in the business area and refused to comply with the Plaintiff’s request for extradition.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1-7 evidence (including more than one number), the overall purport of the pleadings (the actual contents of the lawsuit), and the overall purport of the pleading (the admission of confession)

2. Determination

A. According to the premise of determination as to the cause of claim, insofar as the Plaintiff received the public notice of approval of a management and disposal plan under the provisions of the Urban Improvement Act, the use and profit-making by the right holder, such as the former building owner, lessee, etc. is suspended pursuant to Article 49(3) and (6) of the Urban Improvement Act. Therefore, the Defendants, who directly or indirectly occupy the buildings within the business area, are obliged to deliver the part of possession by each Defendant to the Plaintiff, as described in paragraph (1) of the same Article, as the above public notice of approval, (the Defendant who directly occupies the whole part of the building, has

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da22094 Decided December 22, 1992, and Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635 Decided May 27, 2010, etc.) B.

Defendant D, E, F, and I’s assertion (i.e., the instant lawsuit brought under the absence of a ruling of acceptance was an abuse of right, but the instant lawsuit was filed prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit, as seen in the premise.