1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B: (a) the real estate listed in [Attachment] Section 1;

B. Defendant C shall set out in attached list 1.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 9, 2008, the Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association that 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”).

B. The head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly notified the Plaintiff’s project implementation authorization on March 20, 2014; publicly notified the project implementation authorization on October 13, 2015; and on March 31, 2016, approved the management and disposition plan (hereinafter “the instant management and disposition plan”); and publicly notified the same on the same day.

C. The Defendants possessed each real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the disposition within the project implementation district.

(Defendant B and F were the initial owner) D.

On September 6, 2018, according to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Local Land Tribunal's ruling of expropriation on July 27, 2018, the Plaintiff deposited the compensation for losses with Defendant B as a depositee, and paid the compensation for losses to Defendant F on September 3, 2018.

[Ground of Recognition] In the absence of dispute against Defendant B: Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including, if any, the number is included) and the whole purport of the pleading, as to the remaining Defendants: deemed as confession

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 by right holders, such as owners, superficies, persons having a right to lease, and lessees of the previous land or buildings, 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 real estate stipulated in Paragraph (1) of the disposition, which the Defendants acquired the right to use and profit in accordance with the public notice of the management

B. Defendant B’s assertion that Defendant B was entitled to adequate compensation from the Plaintiff.