1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, and C are all the buildings listed in the separate sheet, and Defendant D is among the first floor of the buildings listed in the separate sheet.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap 1 through 7, the plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association with the Seoul Mapo-gu District Project District. The head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government approves the management and disposal plan on December 8, 2014 regarding the housing redevelopment project implemented by the plaintiff, and announced it on March 12, 2015. The defendant B and C are co-owners of buildings listed in the attached list in the plaintiff's project area, and the defendant D is a lessee of the portion (C) of the attached list 3, 4, 7, 8, and 3 of the first floor connected each point in order of 3, 4, 7, 8, and 3 of the attached list (C), and the plaintiff is recognized to have deposited compensation for the defendant B and C on March 15, 2016 according to the expropriation ruling by the local Land Tribunal on January 29, 2016.

Comprehensively taking account of the above facts of recognition, Defendant B and C are obliged to deliver each of their leased premises to the Plaintiff, and Defendant D is obligated to deliver each of them.

Although Defendant B and C asserted that they filed an objection against the above ruling of acceptance, they cannot oppose the Plaintiff’s request for extradition only with the fact that they filed an objection to the said ruling.

Defendant D asserted that it cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim before the refund of deposit, relocation expenses, and director’s expenses, but thereafter, Defendant B and C is the person to whom the deposit was returned, and the relocation expenses and director’s expenses are difficult to be deemed to be in the simultaneous performance relationship with the duty of delivery of the building (the above Defendant appears to have been paid by the Plaintiff).