1. The Plaintiff:

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

B. Defendant C shall provide the real estate listed in the Appendix 4 list.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association which was established to remove old and inferior structures in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I and newly build multi-family housing and ancillary and welfare facilities above, and has obtained authorization to establish an association from the head of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on April 15, 2009.

B. In accordance with the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), the Plaintiff obtained authorization for the implementation of a housing redevelopment improvement project from the head of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the head of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office for the land 19,59.50 square meters (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”), and received the authorization for the implementation of the management and disposal plan on January 12, 2018, and was publicly notified on January 18, 201

C. The Defendants leased and possessed each part of the real estate indicated in the order located within the instant rearrangement zone.

[Ground of Recognition] Presumption of Confession (Plaintiffs and Defendant B, F, G) / No dispute, entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the entire pleadings (the plaintiff and Defendant C, D, E, and H)

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, when a management and disposal plan is authorized and publicly announced pursuant to Article 81(1) of the Urban Improvement Act, a right holder, such as the owner, superficies, a person having a right to lease on a deposit basis, and a lessee, etc. of the previous land or buildings, shall not use or profit from the previous land or buildings until the date of the public announcement of transfer under Article 86 of the Urban Improvement Act, and the project implementer may use or profit from the former land or buildings (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). Thus, the Defendants whose use or profit has been suspended as the lessee pursuant to the public announcement of the approval of the management and disposal plan in this case are obligated to deliver the said part of each

B. As to the Defendant D and E’s assertion, the said Defendants did not receive compensation for directors’ expenses.