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

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association that obtained authorization for establishment under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), with the size of 17,850 square meters from the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Seoul Seongbuk-gu Seoul”) as the project implementation district on September 9, 2008.

B. The head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly announced the project implementation authorization on March 20, 2014 to the Plaintiff, and publicly announced the project implementation authorization on October 13, 2015, and on March 31, 2016, the head of Seongbuk-gu announced the project implementation authorization on March 31, 2016.

C. Defendant B is the owner of the real estate indicated in the Disposition No. 1 located in the project implementation district, and Defendant C occupies the above real estate as a lessee.

On September 12, 2018, the Plaintiff deposited 314,467,490 won in full of the obstacle compensation or business loss compensation and additional charges for delay under the instant expropriation ruling by the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on July 27, 2018 with Defendant B as a depositee.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. When the public notice of the approval of the management and disposal plan under Article 49(3) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017) regarding the cause of the claim is given, the use and profit of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, etc. of the previous land or buildings, shall be suspended and the project implementer may use and profit from the former land or buildings (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da22094, Dec. 22, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to deliver to the Plaintiff who acquired the right to use and benefit in accordance with the public notice of the management and disposal plan of this case, and the Defendants are obligated to deliver the real estate stipulated

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion regarding the Defendants is the Defendant B’s settlement money.