1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. On April 19, 2010, the Plaintiff was a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project partnership that obtained authorization from the head of Yongsan-gu office on April 19, 2010 as a project implementation district with the land size of 10,030 square meters outside Yongsan-gu Seoul and 152 lots, and was granted authorization for the implementation of the project on January 19, 2012, and the authorization for the implementation of the project on February 11, 2014, and was publicly notified (D) of the management and disposal plan on February

Since then, on October 23, 2014, the Plaintiff obtained the authorization for the change of the project implementation and on September 11, 2015, and on September 18, 2015, the authorization for the change of the management and disposition plan was publicly notified (E).

B. The Defendant is the owner of each real estate listed in the separate sheet in the Plaintiff’s project implementation district (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and became a cash liquidation agent by failing to apply for parcelling-out within the final application period for parcelling-out.

C. On August 21, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for a ruling of expropriation on June 2015, and received a ruling of expropriation on October 12, 2015 from the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which decided on August 21, 2015, on the commencement date of expropriation.

On September 22, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 557,651,480, total amounting to the total amount of the expropriation compensation under the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2015Hun-Ba4243, and KRW 1,359,806, which was calculated by the Plaintiff under the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2015Hun-Ma4244, respectively.

The defendant reserved an objection and received each of the above deposits.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 11 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant asserts to the effect that the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful due to procedural violation, and thus, it should be dismissed.

However, according to the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, it is recognized that the consultation on the amount of compensation was in fact impossible prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit, and the acceptance ruling is rendered prior to the closing date of argument.