1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B, among the first floor of the real estate listed in the attached list No. 1, has the same list indicated by the Korean Supreme Court.

1. The following facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or are recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole in each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 8, 10, 11, and 14 (including Serials):

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association whose project implementation district covers Seongbuk-gu Seoul pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”). The real estate listed in the separate sheet is located in the above project zone; Defendant B and C are the lessees of each part of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1; Defendant D is the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2; Defendant E, F and G are the lessees of each part of the order among the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2.

B. On August 30, 2018, the head of Seongbuk-gu Office approved the Plaintiff’s management and disposal plan and announced it on September 6, 2018.

C. On September 26, 2019, the Plaintiff deposited Defendant D and E’s compensation for losses following the Seoul Regional Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on July 26, 2019. On December 9, 2019, the Plaintiff deposited Defendant D’s housing relocation expenses, resettlement funds, movable property relocation expenses, etc.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are obligated to deliver real estate owned or possessed by the Defendants to the Plaintiff, who acquired the right to use or benefit from the previous building, by obtaining authorization and public notice of a management and disposal plan under the Urban Improvement Act and completing compensation for losses under the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”), except in extenuating circumstances.

B. Defendant D’s assertion was based on the premise that the above acceptance ruling was a person subject to cash settlement even though there was no legitimate notification of application for parcelling-out, and did not verify whether it was possible to additionally parcel out pursuant to the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation, and the procedure for calculating compensation is unlawful, and the compensation is not made.