1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B shall set forth in the attached list A.

The immovable property described in the subsection shall be handed over, and from February 11, 2017, as above.

1. In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 10 and the result of the appraisal commission to the G Appraisal Office of this Court and the whole purport of the pleadings, the defendants can be recognized as all the facts of the cause of the claim and the facts of the changed cause of the claim in the separate sheet Nos. 1 to 10.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to deliver each of the real estate stated in the disposition to the Plaintiff, and Defendant B and E are obligated to return to the Plaintiff the unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent arising from the use and profit of real estate after February 11, 2017, and thus, they are obligated to pay the money stated in each claim.

2. Determination on Defendant E’s assertion

A. Defendant E asserts that the right to use and benefit from the instant real estate exists to the above Defendant, since the Plaintiff did not compensate for losses under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), and the current procedure for adjudication of expropriation is underway.

(b) Where an executor of a housing redevelopment improvement project has deposited compensation for losses as prescribed by the adjudication of expropriation by the competent Land Tribunal, it shall be deemed that the compensation for losses under Article 49 (6) of the Land Compensation Act has been completed.

(2) In light of the purport of the evidence No. 7-1 and the evidence No. 8-2, the Plaintiff filed an application for a ruling of expropriation on December 23, 2016 with the competent local Land Tribunal for a ruling of expropriation on December 10, 2016 (as of the date of expropriation, February 10, 2017), and the Plaintiff deposited Defendant E as Defendant E as the principal deposit on February 10, 2017 and deposited KRW 565,561,170 as stipulated in the said ruling of expropriation with the Seoul Southern Southern District Court Decision No. 620 as of February 10, 2017.

As above, the plaintiff set forth in the adjudication of expropriation by the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City.