1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B: The real estate listed in the Schedule No. 1;

B. Defendant C shall be listed in the attached Table 2.

1. The following facts of recognition shall be acknowledged, either in dispute between the Parties or in Gap evidence 2 to 8 (including evidence numbered) by taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings:

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association established with the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government M& as a project implementation district pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”). Buildings listed in the attached list are within the above project district; Defendant B, F, and G are the owners of buildings subject to delivery, who did not apply for parcelling-out within the application period for parcelling-out; and the rest of the Defendants are the lessees of each building subject to delivery.

B. On August 30, 2018, the head of Seongbuk-gu Office approved the Plaintiff’s management and disposal plan and announced it on September 6, 2018.

C. On September 26, 2019, the Plaintiff deposited the compensation for losses for Defendant B, F, and G according to the ruling of expropriation by the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on July 26, 2019.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are obligated to deliver real estate owned or possessed by the Defendants to the Plaintiff, who acquired the right to use or benefit from the previous building, by obtaining authorization and public notice of a management and disposal plan under the Urban Improvement Act and completing compensation for losses under the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”), except in extenuating circumstances.

B. As to the assertion of Defendant B, F, and G, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the aforementioned Defendants, who are the persons subject to cash settlement who reside in a residential building pursuant to the Urban Improvement Act and the Land Compensation Act, with the cost of moving a house, movable property, and resettlement funds. Such obligation to pay the cost of moving a house, etc. is more obligation to deliver real estate to the Plaintiff than obligation to deliver real estate.

The above defendants' residential relocation costs, etc. are claimed.