1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B shall display 28,29,30, 31, 32, and 28 of the attached Form No. 28, 29, 30, 32, and 28 of the real estate listed in the attached list.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an urban environment rearrangement project association that covers the Seoul Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D's rearrangement project implementation zone.

The Defendants respectively leased and occupy the real estate indicated in the order of the Plaintiff’s improvement project implementation zone.

B. On March 18, 2015, the head of Gangdong-gu announced the Plaintiff’s project implementation authorization and announcement of the urban environment rearrangement project, and on January 30, 2019, the head of Gangdong-gu authorized and announced the management and disposal plan.

C. Upon the Plaintiff’s request, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Expropriation Committee rendered a ruling of KRW 28,350,000 on the business loss compensation expenses for Defendant B. The Plaintiff intended to pay the above money to Defendant B. However, Defendant B refused to do so, and the Plaintiff deposited KRW 28,350,000 on the business loss compensation expenses due to the said ruling of expropriation.

May 8, 2019 (No. 1179 of this Court, 2019) D.

On July 19, 2019, Defendant C drafted a written agreement on goodwill compensation with the Plaintiff to receive KRW 845,000 from the Plaintiff and move to Korea.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants, the lessee of real estate located within the district where the Plaintiff’s improvement project is implemented, lost the right to use and profit from the leased property, and the Plaintiff acquired the right to use and profit from the leased property. Accordingly, the Defendants are obligated to deliver each of the real estate indicated in the disposition to the Plaintiff

Defendant C: Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208(3)2, and Article 150(3) of the Confession Act)

B. Defendant B’s assertion is alleged to the effect that “The Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim, as it was unable to receive lawful business compensation from the Plaintiff,” but as seen earlier, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal upon the Plaintiff’s request.