1. The plaintiff, Ga.

Defendant B shall: (a) the real estate listed in Appendix 1;

B. The defendantC shall provide attached Table 5, C.

Facts of recognition

On February 4, 2009, the Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment project association that completed the registration of incorporation with the approval of establishment under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the “Urban Improvement Act”) from Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu as the project implementation district.

Defendant B is the lessee and possessor of the real estate listed in the attached Form 1 located in the project implementation district, Defendant C is the owner and possessor of the real estate listed in the attached Form 5, Defendant D is the lessee of the real estate listed in the attached Form 6, Defendant E is the lessee of the real estate listed in the attached Form 7, Defendant F is the owner and possessor of the real estate listed in

The head of Nowon-gu publicly announced the approval of the project implementation on May 1, 2014 to the plaintiff, and publicly announced the approval of the management and disposal plan on April 14, 2016.

【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 2-1, 5, 6, 9, Eul evidence 3-1, 2, 4-3-1, 3-2, and the purport of the entire pleadings (in the case of defendant C, D, E, and G, deemed confessions). When the management and disposal plan is authorized and publicly notified pursuant to Article 49(6) and (3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for the Defendants other than defendant F, the former owner, lessee, etc. of the object shall be suspended, and the project implementer may take over the object and take profits from the object to start the project (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da28394, Nov. 24, 2011). According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants (excluding defendantF) are obligated to deliver each real estate in the attached Form possessed by the plaintiff.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 7 and 8 against defendant F, the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City rendered a ruling to accept KRW 81,019,60 with respect to the real estate and its accessory facilities as stated in the separate sheet Nos. 8 as of January 13, 2017, and KRW 494,785,000 with respect to the site as compensation for losses, and the plaintiff made a ruling to accept the same.