1. The Defendants deliver to the Plaintiff each building listed in the attached real estate list.

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

1. Determination as to Defendant B, C, D, F, G, and H

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(b) Defendant B, C, and D: Judgment on deemed confession (Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act);

(c) Defendant F, G, or H: Judgment by service (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. Determination as to Defendant E

A. There is no dispute between the parties or according to each of the statements in Gap evidence 1 to 3, it is recognized that the facts are as shown in the reasons for the claim in the annexed sheet.

According to the above facts, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 81(1) of the Urban Improvement Act, Defendant E, a tenant, is obligated to deliver the building to the Plaintiff who acquired the right to use and profit from the building as the above notification.

B. As to this, Defendant E asserts that he cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s request for extradition before paying housing relocation expenses, etc.

In light of the nature of the amount of money paid on the social security level for the owners, etc. who have a special difficulty due to the policy purpose of facilitating the promotion of the project by encouraging the early relocation of the owners, etc. who reside in the zone where the relevant public works are performed, the right to claim compensation for the cost of moving the residence of the owners, etc. of residential buildings who have been relocated due to the legally implemented public works is the right under public law. Therefore, the lawsuit on the compensation is not a civil lawsuit but a legal relationship under public law (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da8129, May 29, 2008).

(See Supreme Court Decision 2016Da11119 Decided May 23, 2013). Accordingly, Defendant E’s aforementioned defense cannot be accepted.