1. The Defendants shall deliver each of the pertinent real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association, which was authorized to implement the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project on July 18, 201, by setting the 40,404m2 as the project implementation area in Gyeyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan City I in order to implement the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project.

B. On August 29, 2017, the Plaintiff determined a management and disposal plan for the housing redevelopment improvement project and obtained authorization from the high-sea market, and publicly announced the details thereof in the official gazette on the same day.

C. The Defendants leased each corresponding part in the separate sheet as stated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from Nonparty J, the owner of each real estate located within the said project implementation zone, and occupied it.

[Ground of recognition] Defendant C, F: The fact that there is no dispute over Defendant B, D, E, G, and H: each entry in the evidence of Nos. 1 through 14, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Article 81(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) provides that “The owner, superficies, person having a right to the previous land or building, leaser, etc. shall not use or benefit from the previous land or building by the date of public announcement of the approval of the management and disposal plan under Article 78(4).”

Therefore, the Defendants, the lessee, cannot use and benefit from the above management and disposition plan. Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendants are obligated to deliver each of the pertinent real estate listed in the attached Table to the Plaintiff who acquired the right to use and benefit as the project implementer.

B. Defendant B, D, E, G, and H’s assertion is alleged to the effect that Defendant B, D, E, G, and H had not yet been compensated for losses and that the date of expropriation due to the expropriation ruling has not yet arrived. (2) The following are examined: (a) Dop and the evidence Nos. 15 through 18 were written.