1. The plaintiff, the defendant B shall enter the real estate listed in the attached Table No. 1, and the defendant C shall enter the real estate list No. 2.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged between the Plaintiff and the Defendant under the overall purport of the statements and arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, and between the Plaintiff and the Defendant C, the confession is deemed to have been made pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and rearrangement project partnership established under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) for the purpose of promoting the housing reconstruction improvement project (hereinafter “instant reconstruction project”) on the land of Gangnam-gu Seoul National District. As the real estate located within the district of the instant reconstruction project, Defendant B is the real estate listed in attached Table 1, and Defendant C is each lessee of the real estate listed in attached Table 2, and each lessee of the real estate listed in attached Table 2.

B. On April 6, 2018, the head of Gangnam-gu approved the Plaintiff’s management and disposal plan for the instant reconstruction project, and publicly notified on April 13, 2018.

2. The main text of Article 81(1) of the Act on the Determination of Urban Improvement provides that “When the authorization of the management and disposition plan is publicly announced, 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.” Thus, when the approval of the management and disposition plan is publicly notified, the use or profit of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, etc. of the previous land or building, shall be suspended, and the project implementer may use or benefit from the former land or building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). Therefore, the Defendants, who are the lessee whose use or benefit has been suspended as a result of the public announcement