1. The plaintiff

A. Defendant B shall list the annexed sheet

1.A building to be described:

B. The defendant C shall list the attached list

2. The buildings described, c.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 20, 2012, the Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association whose project implementation district covers 59,919 square meters in Songpa-gu Seoul E, Songpa-gu, and obtained project implementation authorization from the head of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government pursuant to Article 28(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents. The head of Songpa-gu publicly notified the management and disposal plan of the redevelopment improvement project on July 2,

B. At the time of the instant lawsuit, Defendant B shall list the attached sheet.

1. The real estate recorded, and the defendant C shall be listed in the annexed sheet;

2. The real estate stated above, and the defendant D shall list in annexed Form.

3. Each ownership and possession of the real estate mentioned above was located in the project implementation district of this case, but the defendants became subject to cash settlement without filing an application for parcelling-out.

C. Upon the Plaintiff’s request, the Seoul Regional Land Tribunal rendered a ruling of expropriation on April 22, 2016, on which the Defendants and the Plaintiff did not reach an agreement on cash settlement for each of the aforementioned possession areas. Upon the said ruling of expropriation, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 722,851,760 as the deposited money, KRW 748,671,510 as the deposited money, KRW 748,671,510 as the deposited money, and KRW 619,818,50 as the deposited money on June 2, 2016, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 through 7, 9, 10, 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination 1) According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff was the owner of each real estate listed in the separate sheet at the date of expropriation (on June 10, 2016). Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are obligated to deliver each part of the Defendants possessed by the Defendants to the Plaintiff, the owner of the land under Article 43 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects. 2) The Defendants’ determination as to the Defendants’ assertion did not complete the lawful compensation for losses under Articles 61 and 62 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects.