1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B is the first real estate listed in the attached real estate list;

B. Defendant C shall list the attached real estate.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association established under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) to implement a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”) whose business area covers F 37,697 square meters, etc. of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government. The Defendants are engaged in the business by leasing and occupying each real estate indicated in the following table in the Plaintiff’s above rearrangement project area.

I real estate consulting No. 6, 7, and 8 of the Schedule 1 B No. 1 G 2C No. 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the Schedule of Real Estate No. 1 B attached Table 2C No. 2, 3, 5 of the Schedule of Real Estate No. 3D No. 6, 7, and 8 of the Schedule of Real Estate

B. On October 8, 2013, the Plaintiff received the approval for the management and disposal plan for the redevelopment project from the head of Eunpyeong-gu, which was accordingly publicly notified on October 17, 2013.

[Based on recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B, C, and D, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Gap evidence No. 4-9, 11, 12, and Gap evidence No. 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the whole purport of the pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings, and the presumption of confession between the Plaintiff and the Defendant E pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants were unable to use or profit from the previous land or buildings pursuant to Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents following the public notice of the management and disposal plan on October 17, 2013. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants, who is the implementer of the instant rearrangement project, have the duty to deliver each of the real estate indicated in

3. As to the determination of Defendant B, C, and D’s assertion, the said Defendants asserted to the effect that the amount of business compensation against the said Defendants is insufficient to comply with the Plaintiff’s claim.

In full view of the contents of evidence Nos. 7, 9, and 10, the Plaintiff’s argument as a whole.