1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B and C jointly indicate the Attached Form 1 of the first floor of the real estate listed in the Attached List No. 1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 22, 2012, the Plaintiff is the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association which obtained approval from the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to establish a project district pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents by setting the size of 60,263 square meters as the project district.

B. The Defendants are the respective lessees and the occupying users of each real estate stated in the Disposition No. 1 located in the project implementation district.

C. On December 20, 2013, the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Northern District Office publicly announced the authorization to implement the project on December 20, 2013, publicly announced the authorization to revise the project implementation on May 27, 2016, and authorized the management and disposition plan on December 29, 2017 (hereinafter “instant authorization to implement the management and disposition plan”), and publicly announced it on January 12, 2018.

On the other hand, on October 8, 2018, the Plaintiff deposited each transfer expense, Defendant D, E, E, F, and G with each of the respective business compensation for Defendant B, H, I, and J as the principal deposit in accordance with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Local Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation.

[Reasons for Recognition]

(a) Defendant B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and J: The absence of any dispute, the entries in Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5-1 through 4, 6-1 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

(b) Defendant I: Confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act and the main sentence of Article 150 (3) of the same Act);

2. Determination

A. When a public notice of the management and disposal plan prescribed by the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents is given to the cause of the claim, the use and profit-making by the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leaseer, etc. of the previous land or building, shall be suspended, and the project implementer may use and profit from the former land or building (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da22094, Dec. 22, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). Therefore, the Plaintiff who acquired the right to use and profit-making in accordance with the public notice of

B. Determination of Defendants B, C, D, and 1 on the Defendants’ assertion