1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B: The real estate listed in the separate sheet;

B. Defendant C is among the real estate listed in the separate sheet.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 9, 2008, the Plaintiff was authorized by the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to establish an association under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”). Defendant B is the owner of the building in the attached list within the said project implementation district, and Defendant C is the owner of the building in the attached list within the said project implementation district, and Defendant C leased the building deposit amount of KRW 40,000,000 from Defendant B’s father E.

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. On September 5, 2018, the Plaintiff rendered a ruling of expropriation on July 27, 2018 (the starting date of expropriation: September 14, 2018) by the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

9.7. The Defendants each deposited the compensation for losses and additional charges as set forth in the above expropriation ruling with each of the deposited parties.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. When a public notice of a management and disposal plan under Article 49(3) of the Act on the Determination of Grounds for Claim is given, the use and profit-making of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, leasee, etc., of the previous land or buildings shall be suspended pursuant to Article 49(6) of the same Act, 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 the Plaintiff who acquired the right to use and profit in accordance with the public notice

3. The defendants' assertion and judgment

A. The defendant B is entitled to compensation from the plaintiff.