1. The Defendants shall withdraw from the building indicated in the attached list.

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

3.Paragraph 1.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. 1) On November 24, 2008, the Plaintiff obtained authorization of an implementation plan for the implementation of an urban development project A from Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government D Day on November 24, 2008 and obtained authorization of a land substitution plan on March 31, 2015, and the Defendants are buildings listed in the attached Table located on the ground in the said project area (hereinafter “instant building”).

(2) On December 8, 2015, the Plaintiff received an expropriation ruling of 59,09,000 won for all of the obstacles owned by Defendant B, including the instant building, from the Land Tribunal of Incheon Metropolitan City, and on January 22, 2016, on January 22, 2016, the Plaintiff deposited the said compensation under the Incheon District Court No. 40 of 2016 with Defendant B as the depositee on January 22, 2016.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. If necessary pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Urban Development Act, an implementer of an urban development project may relocate or remove buildings, etc. located in an urban development zone, and if there is any person occupying buildings, etc. and the relocation or removal is hindered, he/she may request the occupant to withdraw from the building in this case for the smooth realization thereof (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da89549, Sept. 4, 2014). Barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are obligated to leave the building in this case as the occupant at the time of expropriation of the building in this case.

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The Defendants’ assertion that the Plaintiff did not establish and implement the relocation measures stipulated in Article 24 of the Urban Development Act on the condition that the Plaintiff performed an urban development project for the original residents and tenants, and the compensation for losses was not set properly, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim.

(b) The operator under Article 24 of the Urban Development Act shall provide land, etc. necessary for the implementation of an urban development project as prescribed by the Land Compensation Act;