1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B is 71.00 square meters of the 2nd floor among the real property listed in paragraph (1) of the attached list;

B. Defendant C.

1. Claim against Defendant B and E

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Applicable provisions of Acts: Judgment by deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. A claim against Defendant C and D, A2-1 through 3, A3-1, A4-1, A5-1, and 3-3 of the evidence Nos. 5-1 and the purport of the entire pleadings can be acknowledged as the facts constituting the cause of the claim in the separate sheet. When a management and disposal plan is authorized and publicly announced pursuant to Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, a right holder, such as a lessee, etc. of the previous land or structure, cannot use or benefit from the previous land or structure until the date of the public announcement of relocation under Article 54 of the aforesaid Act, and the project implementer can use or benefit from it (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). Thus, barring special circumstances, the Plaintiff, the implementer of the reconstruction project of this case, the Defendant C, the lessee, is obligated to deliver the second real estate in his possession, and the Defendant D, the lessee, each of the real estate of this case.

In this regard, Defendant D asserted that it cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim until receiving the premium for facilities invested in the 3rd real estate of this case, but the Defendant’s obligation to deliver is a duty to be granted to the owner, lessee, etc. of the previous land or building in accordance with the public notice of authorization for a management and disposal plan under Article 49(6) of the above Act, and the project implementer is required to follow separate procedures for the expropriation and use, and the subsequent compensation is in accordance with the management and disposal plan, and the reasons asserted by the Defendant cannot be deemed as a justifiable reason under the law that can deny or block the Plaintiff’s request for extradition.

In addition, the Defendants are requested for the delivery of the Plaintiff until the deposit for lease is refunded.