1. The defendants each point of the attached specifications Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1 among the buildings listed in the attached list of real estate.

1. The facts of recognition are as shown in the annexed sheet of claim;

On the other hand, on October 30, 2018, the Plaintiff deposited the full amount of compensation for losses (business compensation) due to the adjudication of expropriation with Defendant C as the person who was deposited.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including the number of evidence available), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 81(1) of the Urban Improvement Act, the Defendants, the lessee of the instant building, are obligated to deliver the said building to the Plaintiff who acquired the right to use and profit from the instant building, except in extenuating circumstances.

As to this, Defendant C asserts to the effect that, insofar as reasonable business compensation and obstacles compensation are not paid, Defendant B cannot comply with each Plaintiff’s request for delivery, unless directors’ expenses are paid.

However, on October 30, 2018, the fact that the Plaintiff deposited the full amount of compensation for losses (business compensation) due to the adjudication of expropriation made by Defendant C as the deposit recipient is as seen earlier, and the compensation for losses under Article 49(6) of the Land Compensation Act should be deemed to have been completed by the Plaintiff’s deposit of compensation for losses (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da40097, Aug. 22, 2013). The above circumstances asserted by Defendant C do not constitute grounds for refusing the Plaintiff’s claim.

In addition, since the residential relocation cost and director cost are the amount of money paid on the social security level for the owners of residential buildings, etc. who will suffer special difficulties due to the policy purpose to facilitate the project by encouraging the early relocation of the owners, etc. who reside in the zone where the public works are implemented, the right to claim compensation for the residential relocation cost due to the public works lawfully implemented is the right under public law, and therefore, the dispute over the compensation is a civil lawsuit.