1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B: (a) the real estate listed in Section 1 of the Schedule of Attached Real Estate;

B. Defendant C shall be attached hereto.

1. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 6.

The plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association whose business area covers the Seoul Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government FF large pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the "Urban Improvement Act"), and the defendants are the owners and occupants of

B. The Plaintiff received authorization from the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Office to establish an association on April 27, 2010, and authorization to implement a project on November 26, 2013, respectively, and on March 18, 2016, the Plaintiff’s management and disposal plan was approved and announced on March 24, 2016.

C. On October 28, 2016, upon the Plaintiff’s request, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal rendered a ruling of expropriation on December 16, 2016, with the commencement date of expropriation as of October 28, 2016, and accordingly, the Plaintiff deposited the total amount of compensation for losses determined by the said ruling with the Defendants as depositors on December 8, 2016 or the following day.

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the determination on the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff is an implementer who has received the authorization of the management and disposal plan under the Urban Improvement Act, and the Defendants are the owners and occupants of the pertinent real estate in the rearrangement zone. If the management and disposal plan is authorized and publicly announced pursuant to Article 49(3) and (6) of the Urban Improvement Act, the use and profit of the right holders, such as the owner and lessee of the previous building, etc. is suspended. Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to deliver the pertinent real estate to the Plaintiff

B. As to the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants asserted that they were unable to properly compensate for losses, and that they cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim until they receive resettlement funds, housing relocation expenses, and directors’ expenses.

However, as long as the plaintiff deposited a loss as determined by the expropriation ruling, the compensation for loss under the Land Compensation Act under Article 49 (6) of the Urban Improvement Act has been completed.