1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B all the buildings listed in the separate sheet;

B. Defendant C is the second floor of the above building;

(c) the defendant.

1. Indication of claims: To be as specified in attached Form 1;

2. Against Defendant 3 and 4: Judgment to be rendered as a confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act).

3. As to Defendant 2: Judgment by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act).

4. As to Defendant 1, according to each of the evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including the provisional number) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, the following facts can be acknowledged. Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents provides, “When the management and disposal plan is authorized or publicly announced, any right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, etc. of the previous land or structure, shall not use or benefit from the previous land or structure until the date of the public announcement of relocation under Article 54: Provided, That the same shall not apply to a right holder, the compensation for losses under Article 40 and the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects is not completed, due to the authorization and public announcement of the management and disposal plan, the defendant loses his/her right to use

In this regard, the defendant did not apply for an application for an apartment as a result of redevelopment and did not file an application for an adjudication, which was made by the Seoul Regional Land Tribunal, and filed an administrative litigation as to the above expropriation ruling under the Seoul Administrative Court 2017Guhap1841, and did not receive the compensation for the expropriation ruling deposited by the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant cannot comply with the claim for extradition of this case. However, as recognized by the defendant, the plaintiff, who is the redevelopment partnership, did not consent to the redevelopment project, was in the process of accepting the real estate in accordance with the relevant provisions.