1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B, among the real estate listed in the attached Form 1, shall take precedence over each point of indication 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of the attached Form 3.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 through 10 of the judgment on the cause of the claim, it is recognized that the Plaintiff, a project implementer of a A urban renewal acceleration zone, obtained authorization for project implementation around September 2014 from the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and obtained authorization for a management and disposition plan around November 2015; the fact that the management and disposition plan was publicly notified (the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government public notice E); and the fact that the Defendants currently occupied each part of the building stipulated in the order No. 1 included in the project implementation district of a A urban renewal acceleration zone

According to the facts of recognition, the defendants whose use and profit-making on the part corresponding to the above building has been suspended pursuant to the main sentence of Article 49 (6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, barring any special circumstances, are obligated to deliver the above part to the plaintiff who lawfully acquired the right to use

2. Defendant B and C’s assertion argues that Defendant B and C’s compensation deposited by the Plaintiff could not be sufficiently compensated for the Defendants’ losses. Thus, Defendant B and C’s claim cannot be complied with.

Where an operator of a project deposits compensation for losses as determined by the expropriation ruling by the competent Land Tribunal, the compensation for losses referred to in Article 49 (6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da40097, Aug. 22, 2013). According to the evidence examined earlier, the Plaintiff deposited all the compensation for losses as prescribed by the adjudication of acceptance with respect to Defendant B and C.

In relation to the appropriateness of compensation for losses, Defendant B and C may dispute whether to increase compensation through separate objections, administrative litigation, etc., but on this ground, the transfer of the relevant real estate cannot be denied.

Defendant B and C’s assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is accepted in entirety.