1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B: (a) the building listed in the separate sheet No. 2;

B. Defendant C shall set forth in the separate sheet No. 4.

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association established to improve residential environments in Seongbuk-gu Seoul E-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-Japan where infrastructure for rearrangement is inferior and worn-out and inferior buildings are concentrated pursuant to Article 13 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the “Urban Improvement Act”). The Defendant B is a building and its site specified in the attached Table No. 2 in the above zone, Defendant C is a building and its site, Defendant C is a building and its site specified in the attached Table No. 4, and Defendant D is an owner and possessor of the land in the attached Table No. 5 of the attached Table No. 13

(2) The Plaintiff obtained authorization for the establishment of each building on April 21, 2009 from the head of Seongbuk-gu, and obtained authorization for the implementation of the project on April 4, 2013, and received authorization for the implementation of the project on December 22, 2014, and publicly notified the management and disposal plan on December 26, 2014.

On June 26, 2015, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal, upon the Plaintiff’s application for adjudication of expropriation, accepted each of the instant building and its site for the said rearrangement project, and rendered a ruling to the effect that KRW 157,052,270 against Defendant B, KRW 254,296,960 against Defendant C, and KRW 665,923,60 against Defendant D as compensation.

On August 11, 2015, prior to the date of expropriation prescribed by the above ruling (the date of August 14, 2015), the Plaintiff deposited each of the above compensations with the Defendants as the deposited parties.

【Fact-finding without any dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including additional numbers), the purport of the entire pleadings, and the defendants' entire purport of the disposition plan is authorized and publicly notified pursuant to Article 49(6) and (3) of the Act on Urban Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, the use and profit-making of the previous owner, lessee, etc. of the subject matter shall be suspended, and the project implementer may take over the subject matter to use and profit-making therefrom (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da28394, Nov. 24, 2011).