1. The Plaintiff:

(a) Defendant B is the real estate listed in the Schedule No. 1;

B. Defendant C shall be listed in the attached Table 2.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 14, 2010, the Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association that obtained authorization to establish a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant project”) with the housing redevelopment and rearrangement project, the business area of which is 55,956 square meters in Gwangju-si.

B. On June 21, 2018, the Lighting Market approved and publicly notified the Plaintiff’s management and disposal plan.

C. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “each of the instant real estate,” and, individually named, according to the sequences, the “instant real estate” is located in the instant project area. Defendant B, Defendant C, and Defendant D, as the owner of the instant third real estate, did not apply for the parcelling-out during the period of application for parcelling-out, and became a cash liquidation agent.

On January 10, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication with the Gyeonggi-do Local Land Tribunal. On December 10, 2018, the Gyeonggi-do Local Land Tribunal rendered an adjudication (hereinafter referred to as “instant adjudication”) with the content that the date of expropriation begins on January 24, 2019; Defendant B’s compensation for losses is KRW 381,895,660; Defendant C’s compensation for losses is KRW 494,573,010; Defendant C’s compensation for losses is KRW 1,803,253,950 (hereinafter referred to as “instant adjudication”).

E. On January 24, 2019, the Plaintiff deposited the compensation for losses as stipulated in the instant judgment with the Defendants as the deposited parties.

F. The Defendants are occupying each of the instant real estate until now.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 4, 17 through 25 (including each number in the case of additional statements) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Defendant D’s objection to Defendant D’s principal safety defense was asserted to the effect that, as the Plaintiff filed an extradition lawsuit against Defendant D F regarding the third floor of the instant third floor among the instant third real estate property against Defendant D, it constitutes a duplicate lawsuit, and thus, is unlawful. However, the same party is prohibited from filing a duplicate lawsuit under Article 259 of the Civil Procedure Act.