1. The Plaintiff, the Defendant B, the real estate listed in paragraph 1 of the attached Table, the real estate listed in paragraph 2 of the attached Table, and the Defendant C.

The indication of claims against Defendant B and C: The grounds for the claims are as shown in the attached Form.

The Plaintiff filed a claim against Defendant D for a confession (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act) (Article 208(3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) in order to implement a housing reconstruction project (hereinafter “instant project”) in the Seogu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City E Group, Daegu-gu, and the head of the Gu, who is a housing reconstruction project partnership under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) established with an authorization for establishment from the head of the Gu of the Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, and publicly notified the above authorization on September 19, 208 as of the same day after obtaining an approval for the management and disposal plan from the head of the Gu, and Defendant D leased and occupied the real estate listed in attached Table 3(hereinafter “instant real estate”) located in the said project zone from the owner, or is

Article 81(1) main sentence of Article 81(1) of the Urban Improvement Act provides that “Any right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, leasee, etc. of the previous land or building, shall not use or profit from the previous land or building until the date of public announcement of transfer under Article 86, if a public announcement of a management and disposal plan is made under Article 78(4).” In the event a public announcement of a management and disposal plan is made, the use or profit-making by the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, leasee, etc. of the previous land or building shall be suspended and the project implementer may use or profit from the previous land or building (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). Therefore, Defendant D, a lessee of the instant real estate, is obligated to deliver the instant

As to this, Defendant D had not expired the term of lease of the instant real estate, the Plaintiff.