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. Determination as to the claim against Defendant B and F

A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the entries in Gap's 1 through 9, 11, and 12 (including each number in the case of additional numbers), it is recognized that the facts are the same as the entry in the cause of the claim in the annexed sheet No. 1, and the defendant F has the obligation to deliver the real estate listed in the annexed sheet No. 5 to the plaintiff, and the defendant F,

B. The above Defendants asserted to the effect that they cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request for extradition since they were not paid the compensation for losses, resettlement funds, housing relocation expenses, and movable property transfer expenses (hereinafter “resident transfer expenses, etc.”) by the Plaintiff.

In light of the above evidence, the plaintiff deposited the above defendants with the expropriation compensation (Defendant B: 834,613,659 won, Defendant F:69 won, and Defendant F: 696,642,550 won) on July 26, 2019 by the Seoul Special District Land Tribunal of Seoul on September 26, 2019. The duty to pay housing relocation expenses, etc. borne by the project implementer and the duty to deliver the building the owner of which acquired the ownership to the project implementer in accordance with lawful expropriation procedures shall be deemed to have mutual significance or to have a close relation in terms of performance from a fair perspective. Thus, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff's obligation to pay housing relocation expenses, etc. is more than the duty to deliver the above defendants' real estate.

In addition, the Plaintiff’s deposit of housing relocation expenses, etc. (Defendant B: 17,617,280 won, Defendant F: 23,972,710 won) on December 5, 2019, according to the respective statements in the evidence Nos. 11 and 12, the Plaintiff’s deposit of housing relocation expenses, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da40643, Feb. 15, 2017).

The above defendants' assertion is without merit.

2. Determination as to the claims against Defendant C, D, E, G, and H

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(b) Article 208 (3) 2 and Article 208 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act shall apply to judgment of confessions.