1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B: (a) the buildings listed in Section 1 of Annex 1;

B. Defendant C is listed in Appendix 1 List 2.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association that has obtained authorization for the establishment of a project under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), with the size of 153,501 square meters in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul as the project implementation district on February 26, 2009.

B. The head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly announced the authorization to implement the project on June 20, 2013 with respect to the Plaintiff, and publicly announced the authorization to amend the project implementation on September 25, 2014 and January 22, 2015. On February 24, 2017, the head of Seongbuk-gu publicly announced the authorization to implement the management and disposition plan (hereinafter “the instant authorization to implement the management and disposition plan”), and on March 2, 2017.

C. The Defendants occupy each of the buildings listed in Paragraph (1) of this Article located within the project implementation district.

The Plaintiff deposited the compensation for losses, etc. by taking Defendant B and D as a depositer around October 2017 according to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Local Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on August 25, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] For Defendant E: The fact that there is no dispute against the remaining Defendants of the confession, each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including the case where there is a serial number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. When a public notice of a management and disposal plan stipulated in the Act on the Determination of the Grounds for Claims is given, the use and profit-making of right holders, such as owners, superficies, persons having a right to lease on the previous land or buildings, and leasers, shall be suspended, 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 each building described in paragraph (1) of the order possessed by the Defendants to the Plaintiff who acquired the right to use and profit in accordance with the public notice

B. (1) The above defendant asserted that he cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim until he receives appropriate compensation from the plaintiff, but it is recognized as above.