1. The Defendants deliver to the Plaintiff each of the relevant real estate listed in the separate sheet.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

1. As to the defendants other than defendantO

A. On July 18, 201, the Plaintiff is the Housing Redevelopment Development and Improvement Project Association established with the authorization of establishment on July 18, 201 for the implementation of the Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project with the area of 40,404 square meters in Gyeyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan City as the business area. The Defendants occupy each of the relevant real estate listed in the attached list in the above business area as the tenants of the Plaintiff’s members who applied for parcelling-out. 2) The Plaintiff obtained the approval of the management and disposal plan on August 29, 201 from the Yangyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan City with the approval of the management and disposal plan on August 29, 2017 from the Yangyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, and the Yangyang-gu Mayor announced the contents of the above management and disposal plan on the same day, the Defendants are obligated to deliver each building to the Plaintiff.

(b) Defendant 1, 2, and 8 of the applicable provisions of Acts: Defendant 3 through 7, 9 through 13, 15, 16, and 17 of the Civil Procedure Act (a judgment by public notice) under Article 208(3)3 of the same Act: Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act (a judgment by public notice);

2. As to the defendantO

A. In full view of the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 44 and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff, who is a housing redevelopment and improvement project association, obtained authorization of the management and disposal plan, and the contents of the approval of the management and disposal plan are publicly notified, and the defendantO possessed the building owned by the plaintiff's union member. According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff acquired the use of and the right to benefit from the building occupied by the defendantO pursuant to Article 49 (6) of the Do governor Act, and the defendantO lost its use and the right to benefit. Thus, the defendantO

B. As to the defendantO's assertion, the defendantO operated the massage for 28 years from the occupied building, and he asserts that it is improper to deliver the occupied building without paying the business loss compensation and the relocation expenses.

Until now, the defendant O occupies.