1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant C, as stated in Section 1 of the attached Table 1, and Defendant C, as stated in Section 2 of the attached Table 1, respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 26, 2009, the Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association that has obtained authorization for the establishment of a project pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) with the size of 153,501 square meters in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G G G G as the project implementation district from

B. The Defendants are the owners or occupants of each building listed in the separate sheet in the above project implementation district. Defendants B are the building listed in the separate sheet No. 1, Defendant E are the respective owners of the building listed in the separate sheet No. 1, and the building listed in the separate sheet No. 3, Defendant C is the building listed in the separate sheet No. 2, Defendant D is the building listed in the separate sheet No. 2, and Defendant E is the respective occupants of the building listed in the separate sheet No. 2, the separate sheet No.

C. The head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly announced the authorization to implement the project on June 20, 2013 with respect to the Plaintiff, and publicly announced the authorization to implement the project on January 22, 2015. On February 24, 2017, the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government approved the management and disposal plan and publicly announced it on March 2, 2017.

On the other hand, on August 25, 2017, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Local Land Tribunal rendered a ruling of expropriation on October 20, 2017 for the plaintiff's improvement project.

Accordingly, on October 19, 2017 and October 20, 2017, the date of commencement of expropriation, the Plaintiff deposited the total amount of compensation for losses and late payment as stipulated in the above expropriation ruling with the owners of real estate listed in the separate list, including Defendant H, as their respective depositors.

[Ground of recognition] Defendant D, F: The fact that there is no dispute over Defendant B, C, and E, each of the statements (including serial number) in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and the purport of the entire pleadings

3. The Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da22094 Decided December 22, 1992; Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da22094 Decided December 22, 1992; Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da22094 Decided December 22, 199; Supreme Court Decision 2005Da3289 Decided December 22, 201.