1. The Defendants deliver each of the pertinent real estate listed in the attached Table to the Plaintiff.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a reconstruction association under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) which completed the establishment registration as of October 25, 2012 after obtaining authorization for establishment from the Governor of the Jeollabuk-do Gun Industrial Complex on October 19, 2012 for the purpose of promoting the reconstruction project of the A apartment of Jeollabuk-do Gun, Jeollabuk-do (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. The Defendants are the owners of each of the pertinent real estate listed in the separate sheet within the project implementation district of the Plaintiff Union

1.2.3.5) or lessee (the defendant);

4.6.) Possession of each of the above immovables (the fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, entries in Gap's evidence 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. As the contents of the instant claim are publicly notified of the approval of the management and disposal plan for the instant apartment reconstruction project, the Plaintiff sought delivery of each of the pertinent real estate as stated in the attached Table from the project implementer’s position, based on Article 49(6) of the Urban Improvement Act.

3. Defendant F had already pending an extradition suit to the same effect as the instant claim before the instant lawsuit was filed, which is, Defendant F’s judgment on Defendant F’s defense prior to the merits of the instant lawsuit, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it constitutes a duplicate suit.

According to the purport of the evidence No. 4 and the whole pleadings, the previous suit asserted by Defendant F can be seen as a guardian of the India case against the No. 16 and No. 104 of the apartment of this case owned by him. The lawsuit of this case is seeking to deliver the apartment of this case No. 12 and No. 503 of the apartment of this case owned by him, and even according to the assertion itself, the lawsuit of this case does not vary with the previous suit and does not constitute a duplicate lawsuit. Thus, the prior suit by the above Defendant is without merit.

4. Judgment on the merits of this case by public notice against Defendant B and E (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act) (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act) is rendered as to Defendant C and G, the Civil Procedure Act.