1. The plaintiff, and the defendant B is marked with the 75.62 square meters of the 2nd floor of the building indicated in the attached Table list, and the 2 to 5 and 2 of the 2nd floor of the ground.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in each description of evidence A Nos. 1 through 6:

The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association established for the purpose of implementing a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”) with the area of 62,245.8 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. The Plaintiff received authorization to implement the project on March 6, 2014 from the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the authorization to implement the management and disposal plan on December 8, 2014, and the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government announced the authorization to implement the management and disposal plan on March 12, 2015.

C. Defendant B is the owner of the building located within the project zone of the instant rearrangement project, and is subject to cash settlement. Even if the Plaintiff was paid the full amount of the compensation for expropriation of the instant building on January 29, 2016 by the Seoul Regional Land Tribunal that deposited on March 15, 2016, Defendant B occupied and used the part stipulated in paragraph (1) of the order among the instant building.

Meanwhile, the remaining Defendants, except Defendant B, leased from Defendant B the part indicated in Section 1 of the Disposition from among the instant buildings, and occupied and used them as residential areas.

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant B is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, and as a result, each of the above lease agreements between the Defendants cannot be achieved and its purpose was terminated.

As such, (Defendant C and D have already received the full refund of the lease deposit from Defendant B), the remaining Defendants are also obligated to deliver to the Plaintiff each leased and used part of the lease deposit.

B. Defendant E argues that business compensation should be made since wife G runs an excessive business in the above leased area. However, the use of the above leased area is residential, and it is a prospective redevelopment area on the lease contract (No. 1) at the time of conclusion of the lease contract.