1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B indicated in attached Form 1’s list of real estate 1, and indicated in attached Form 2’s list 1,2,3,4,5,6.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an urban environment rearrangement project association whose urban environment rearrangement project zone covers the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G Group.

The Defendants respectively leased and possess the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 list in the Plaintiff’s improvement project implementation zone.

B. On July 26, 2012, the head of Mapo-gu Office: (a) granted authorization for the implementation of an urban environment rearrangement project by the Plaintiff; and (b) granted authorization for a management and disposal plan on July 7, 2015; and (c) granted

7. 9. The notice was made.

C. On February 26, 2016, upon the Plaintiff’s request, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal rendered a ruling of expropriation for the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 list, the date of commencement of expropriation as of April 15, 2016.

According to the above ruling of expropriation, the Plaintiff deposited the expropriation compensation with the owners of the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 list. Of the Defendants, the Plaintiff agreed to deposit the business compensation with Defendant B, D, and F, who is the subject of the business compensation, and to pay KRW 29,340,000 as well as the receipt of real estate until June 30, 2016 with Defendant C.

Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1-1, 2, Gap 2-1 through 3, Gap 3-1 through 3, Gap 4-1, 2, 3, 4, 6, Gap 5-1, 2, Gap 7-1 through 3, Gap 8-1, and Gap 10-1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the defendants' duty of delivery, the defendants, the lessee of real estate located within the district where the plaintiff's maintenance and disposal plan was approved by the head of Mapo-gu, lost the right to use and profit from the leased property, and the plaintiff acquired the right to use and profit from the leased property. Thus, the defendants have the duty to deliver it to

B. The Defendants asserted that the compensation for losses under the relevant statutes has not been completed since they raised an objection against the ruling of expropriation by the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City. However, the above Defendants asserted that the compensation for losses under the relevant statutes has not been completed.