1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B: (a) the buildings listed in paragraph 1 of the attached list;

B. Defendant C shall be listed in [Attachment] Section 2.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and maintenance project association whose business area covers the first unit of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter "Urban Improvement Act"), and each building listed in the attached list is located within the above business area.

B. The Plaintiff obtained authorization from the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to establish an association on April 27, 2010, and authorization to implement a project on November 26, 2013, respectively, and on March 18, 2016, the Plaintiff’s management and disposition plan was approved and thereafter approved.

3. 24. The plan was published.

A four-story lessee of the status of the occupation status of the Defendant (Defendant number) (attached Form No. 1), B (1), 2 owners 1 owners 2 C (2), 3 D(3) 4 owners 4 owners 4 E (4) 6 owners 5 F(5) 6-1, 2, 3, and 5th lessee of 6 G (6) 6.

C. The Defendants, as the owners or lessees of each building listed in the separate sheet, occupy each building listed in the separate sheet as follows.

On October 28, 2016, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal rendered a ruling of expropriation on December 16, 2016, with the date of expropriation as of December 16, 2016, and the Plaintiff deposited the full amount of each Defendant’s loss (in the case of Defendant F, the compensation for business suspension) as determined by the above ruling on December 8, 2016, with Defendant B, D, E, and F as each deposit.

[Reasons for Recognition] Defendant G: The remaining Defendants of confessions: The absence of dispute, each entry of Gap 1 through 6 (including the serial number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, according to the judgment on the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is an implementer for whom the management and disposal plan under the Urban Improvement Act has been authorized and publicly notified, and the defendants occupy each building listed in the attached list within the rearrangement zone. When the management and disposal plan is authorized and publicly notified pursuant to Article 49(3) and (6) of the Urban Improvement Act, the use and profit-making of the right holder, such as the owner, lessee, etc. of the previous building, is suspended. Thus, the plaintiff who became entitled to use and profit-making the above building due to the above public notice