1. The Plaintiff:

A. (1) Defendant B is the real estate listed in the attached Table 1’s list; and (2) Defendant C is the real estate list listed in the attached Table 1’s list.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 6, 2009, the Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project partnership that has obtained an authorization to establish an association from the head of Songpa-gu Office pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”). On April 27, 2015, the Plaintiff obtained an approval for the establishment of an association from the head of Songpa-gu Office for the purpose of promoting a housing redevelopment improvement project of housing of 98,690§³

On April 30, 2015, the head of Songpa-gu published a plan for the management and disposal of the above property in the official bulletin under Article 2015-40 of the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

B. Defendant C, D, E, and F are the owners of real estate listed in the annexed Table 1’s real estate list located within the Plaintiff’s project implementation district (hereinafter “instant one building”). Defendant C, D, E, and F occupy each of the pertinent parts listed in the order of the instant one building as a lessee.

Defendant G is the owner of 2 real estate indicated in the same list (hereinafter “instant 2 building”). Defendant H, I, and J occupy each of the relevant parts of the instant 2 building as a lessee.

C. On November 14, 2016, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 1,280,273,480 as the depositee, and KRW 1,223,313,910 as the depositee of the Plaintiff G, on September 30, 2016, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 1,223,313,910 as the expropriation compensation.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap 1 through 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The defendants (excluding the defendants D, E, and H) asserted that the plaintiff's request for extradition of this case was unlawful because the plaintiff, who is the implementer of the housing redevelopment project for the determination of this safety defense implementer, acquired the right to use and benefit from the building Nos. 1 and 2 in the project area in accordance with the public notice of approval of the management and disposition plan, against the defendants, the owner or lessee, prior to the payment of compensation for expropriation, the request for extradition of this case was filed before the payment of compensation for expropriation did not meet the requirements for litigation