1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

3. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, it is ordered.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. In addition to the purport of the entire pleadings in each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including a branch number), the plaintiff is a housing redevelopment development project association whose business area covers 62,245.8m2 in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government approves the management and disposition plan on December 8, 2014 for the housing redevelopment project implemented by the plaintiff, and publicly notifies it on March 12, 2015. The defendants are co-owners of the buildings listed in the attached Table Nos. 1 to the above business area (hereinafter "the building of this case"). The defendants are subject to cash liquidation, and the defendants B, C, D, and F were residing in the above building; the plaintiff deposited 374,607,440 won for each of the defendants before March 18, 2016 according to the adjudication of expropriation by the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Metropolitan City.

B. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, Defendant B, C, D, and F received KRW 5,899,127, including each resettlement subsidy (= KRW 2,406,945, the relocation subsidy of KRW 3,000,000, the relocation subsidy of KRW 2,406,945, the relocation subsidy of KRW 492,182) from the Plaintiff, and the instant building, Defendant E, and G are obligated to deliver each of the instant buildings, as sought by the Plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The Defendants cannot reasonably compensate the amount of compensation.

The plaintiff's request for extradition is not possible because he/she did not receive interest or delay compensation on resettlement funds, etc.

However, as long as the Plaintiff deposited compensation following the adjudication of acceptance, even if the Defendants could not dispute the amount of compensation in the administrative litigation, they cannot refuse the Plaintiff’s request for extradition on this ground, and there is no ground to deem that the Plaintiff is liable to pay interest or delay compensation with respect to the above resettlement funds, etc.

B. Meanwhile, Defendant E and G present present.