1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant C, real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, and real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 19, 2010, the Plaintiff was authorized to establish a project district of Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu as the project district and obtained authorization from the head of Seongbuk-gu.

B. On July 14, 2016, the head of Seongbuk-gu publicly announced the project implementation authorization to the Plaintiff, and authorized and publicly announced the management and disposal plan on August 30, 2018.

C. The Defendants occupy each of the above buildings as the lessee of each of the buildings listed in the separate sheet.

The Plaintiff deposited KRW 7,080,00,000 to Defendant B, and KRW 29,985,000 to Defendant C as the principal deposit, and KRW 5,785,00,00 as the principal deposit in accordance with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Local Land Expropriation Committee’s adjudication on expropriation of Defendant D, respectively, with the amount of business compensation for the Defendants.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including each number in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are obligated to deliver each of the above real estate possessed by the Defendants to the Plaintiff, who acquired the right to use and benefit from each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet according to the above notice

B. As to Defendant E’s assertion, Defendant E claims that the amount of at least 17,380,000 won should be paid with resettlement costs and business compensation costs, Defendant E cannot deliver the real estate listed in the attached Table 4.

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff deposited a business compensation (including expenses incurred before) due to the adjudication of expropriation by the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, in order to determine that the said Defendant is a tenant of a commercial building, and the right to claim compensation for losses should be subject to the administrative litigation procedure, not civil litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da43461, Oct. 13, 201).