1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant C, indicated in the separate sheet, and the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 6 among the above buildings.

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 4:

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 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Ilbol 62,245 square meters.

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 or possessor of the building located within the project zone of the instant improvement project (hereinafter “instant building”), and the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s member, and Defendant C is the owner or possessor of the instant building as indicated in paragraph (1) of this case from E (part of the instant building).

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, the lease contract between Defendant B and E and the sub-lease contract between E and Defendant C cannot achieve its purpose.

As such, (the Defendant C has already received the full refund of KRW 500,000 from E), Defendant C also has the obligation to deliver the entire section of the instant building to the Plaintiff.

B. Defendant C, among the buildings of this case, was engaged in retail business such as relief items and tobacco retail business under the trade name of “F” from the front section of the building of this case, and thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

(3) If the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, the location of the monthly rent contract and the business registration certificate submitted by the defendant C to prove the business facts and the building of this case seems to be different from the building of this case).