1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant C, listed in attached Table No. 1, and Defendant C, listed in attached Table No. 2.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and maintenance project association whose business area covers Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D D pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”). Each real estate listed in the attached list is located within the above business area.

B. The Plaintiff obtained authorization from the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to establish an association on April 27, 2010, and authorization to implement a project on November 26, 2013, respectively, and on March 18, 2016, the Plaintiff’s management and disposition plan was approved and thereafter approved.

3. 24. The plan was published.

C. As the owner, Defendant B occupies the real estate listed in paragraph 1 of the attached list, and Defendant C occupies the real estate listed in paragraph 2 of the attached list.

The Defendants did not apply for an application for parcelling-out and were cash liquidation agents, and the Plaintiff did not consult with the Defendants, and applied for a ruling of expropriation to the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

On October 28, 2016, the commission rendered a ruling of expropriation on December 16, 2016, with the commencement date of expropriation as of October 28, 2016, and on December 8, 2016, the Plaintiff deposited the Defendants as their respective depositors and deposited the full amount of the compensation for each Defendant as stipulated in the above ruling.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 6 evidence (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, according to the judgment on the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is the implementer of the management and disposal plan under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas, and the defendants possess each real estate listed in the attached list in the improvement zone. When the management and disposal plan is authorized and announced pursuant to Article 49(3) and (6) of the Act, the use and profit of the right holder, such as the owner and lessee of the previous building, etc., shall be suspended. Thus, the plaintiff who became entitled to use and profit from the above building due to the above approval announcement, the defendant Eul is obligated to deliver the real estate listed in the attached

Supreme Court Decision 91Da22209 delivered on December 22, 1992