1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B: (a) the first real estate listed in the Appendix 1 List;

B. Defendant C is listed in the Appendix 1 list.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 4, 2008, the Plaintiff was a reconstruction improvement project association that obtained authorization from the head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on September 21, 2013 pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), and was authorized to implement a housing reconstruction project on January 22, 2015, and the head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government announced it on the same day.

B. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet is within the above business area, and the defendants are subject to the disposition No. 1.

(a)beo;

It has been occupied until now on the lease of each real estate described in the paragraph.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number in the case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Each judgment on deemed confessions as to Defendant B, C, E, F, G, H, and I (Article 208(3)2 and Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act)

B. According to the facts of recognition as seen earlier, when a management and disposal plan is authorized and publicly announced pursuant to Article 49(6) of the Urban Improvement Act, the owner, superficies, leasee, etc. of the previous land or buildings may not use or profit from the previous land or buildings until the date of the public announcement of transfer under Article 54 of the Urban Improvement Act, and the project implementer may use or benefit from the former land or buildings (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010), barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, the lessee, is obligated to deliver each of the pertinent real estate in his/her possession to the Plaintiff, the implementer of the reconstruction project of this case, who is the developer of the reconstruction project of this case.

(2) As to Defendant D’s assertion, the Defendant provided an institutional device called “pre-consultative body” in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the Plaintiff did not undergo such consultation and did not provide adequate compensation, such as house repair expenses and director expenses.