1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B: (a) the fourth real estate listed in the separate sheet;

B. Defendant C shall set forth in the separate sheet No. 5.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff obtained authorization for the establishment of the Suwon City on January 6, 2010 from the Suwon City, and obtained authorization for the implementation of the project on December 11, 2015 with respect to the FY 171,652 square meters in Suwon-si, Suwon-si on December 11, 2015, and received the authorization for the implementation of the project on March 23, 2017.

The above management and disposition plan was announced on March 27, 2017.

(G) public notice in orchard; (b)

Attached Form

Each real estate recorded in the list is located in the project implementation district above, and the defendants have occupied each real estate as the owner thereof.

C. After receiving the ruling of expropriation from the local Land Tribunal of Gyeonggi-do, the Plaintiff deposited the full amount of compensation as stipulated in the above ruling of expropriation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 16, 21, and 22; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendants are obligated to deliver each of the relevant real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Defendants to the Plaintiff who acquired the right to use and benefit in accordance with the notice of the management and disposal plan.

The defendants asserted that the plaintiff could not respond to the plaintiff's claim because the plaintiff did not pay compensation for losses to the above defendants, or did not pay housing relocation expenses, relocation subsidies, and directors' expenses.

However, as seen earlier, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff deposited compensation as stipulated in the adjudication of expropriation by the Land Tribunal, and that the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay housing relocation expenses, director expenses, etc. to residents of residential buildings and the obligation to deliver real estate to the occupant of residential buildings for which compensation for expropriation was paid is related to the performance (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da40643, Feb. 15, 2017). The Defendants’ aforementioned assertion is without merit.

Furthermore, the Defendants’ project implementation authorization and management and disposal plan formulated in violation of relevant provisions, such as the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, are invalid due to serious defects, such as infringement of cultural heritage and occurrence of property damage