1.For the plaintiff: (a)

Defendant B shall submit the attached Form No. 1 building:

B. Defendant C is a building listed in the separate sheet No. 2, C.

Facts of recognition

On April 27, 2010, the Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association that has obtained authorization to establish an association from the head of Seongbuk-gu Office pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

Defendant B: (a) the owner and possessor of the building specified in attached Table 1 List in the said project implementation district; and (b) the owner and possessor of the building specified in attached Table 1 List 2; and (c) the Defendant D and E, the occupant of the second floor among the buildings specified in attached Table 1 List 1 List 2 (hereinafter “each of the instant buildings”). The head of Seongbuk-gu authorized the Plaintiff to implement the project on November 26, 2013; (b) publicly notified the implementation on December 3, 2013; (c) authorized the management and disposal plan on March 18, 2016; and (d) publicly notified on March 24, 2016.

On October 28, 2016, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal rendered a ruling to expropriate each of the instant buildings and attached facilities for the said rearrangement project.

Therefore, before the commencement date of expropriation ( December 16, 2016), the Plaintiff deposited the compensation prescribed in the above adjudication with Defendant B and C as the depositee.

【Non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including a branch number), the purport of the entire pleadings (Provided, That in the case of defendant D, the plaintiff acquired the ownership of each of the buildings of this case by depositing compensation for expropriation. Thus, the defendants are obligated to deliver the plaintiff the part of possession of each of the buildings of this case among the buildings of this case.

As to this, Defendant B and C alleged that they could not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim because they did not receive resettlement funds, housing relocation expenses, directors’ expenses, etc. However, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 17,173,720 on March 17, 2017 with Defendant B as a depositee and deposited KRW 17,173,720, such as resettlement funds, housing relocation expenses, and movable property transfer expenses, and on the same day, Defendant C as the depositee.