1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B: the real estate listed in Section 1 of [Attachment];

B. Defendant C and D shall set forth in attached Table 2.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association whose project implementation district covers 47,501.4 square meters of Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F.

The Plaintiff was authorized to implement the project on March 27, 2013 by the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government pursuant to Article 28 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the "Urban Improvement

B. The Defendants, as tenants of the building indicated in Paragraph (1) of this Article located within the said rearrangement project zone, occupy the relevant part specified in Paragraph (1) of this Article.

C. On April 24, 2015, the Plaintiff obtained the approval of the management and disposal plan for housing redevelopment projects from the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and on April 30, 2015, the said approval was publicly notified.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 5, 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. When a public notice of a management and disposal plan under Article 49(3) of the Act on the Determination of Grounds for Claim is given, the use and profit-making by the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, etc. of the previous land or buildings, shall be suspended pursuant to Article 49(6) of the same Act, and the project implementer may use and profit from the former land or buildings (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da22094, Dec. 22, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to deliver the pertinent part of possession under Paragraph (1) of the same Article to the Plaintiff

B. Defendant B and E’s assertion 1) argues that the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim until receiving KRW 15 million in total and KRW 20 million in premium, facility investment cost of KRW 72 million in total and KRW 48 million in total, and KRW 1.2 million in total, and Defendant E cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim until receiving KRW 41 million in total.2) first of all, the determination is that the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with the premium and facility investment cost of KRW 15 million in total and KRW 26 million.