1. The Defendants deliver to the Plaintiff the real estate indicated in the attached list.

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

3.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an urban development project association designated by the head of Incheon Metropolitan City as the implementer of an urban development project A (hereinafter “instant project”).

B. The Plaintiff consulted with the owner, etc. in order to transfer the goods to be incorporated in the instant project, but did not reach an agreement, the Plaintiff applied for adjudication of expropriation to the Incheon Metropolitan City Regional Land Expropriation Committee.

C. On July 22, 2014, the Incheon Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal rendered a decision on expropriation (hereinafter “decision on expropriation”) on September 15, 2014 regarding real estate, including the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). The ownership relationship of the instant real estate at the time is as listed below.

Co-owners’ equity ratio of Defendant B 1/4 Defendant C1/4 E 1/4 F 1/4

D. On September 2, 2014, the Plaintiff deposited each of the pertinent co-owners of the instant real estate in the future on September 2, 2014, on the ground that the co-owners of the instant real estate refuse to receive the compensation determined by the instant adjudication of expropriation.

On the other hand, the above co-owners were dissatisfied with the adjudication of expropriation of this case and filed an objection with the Central Land Expropriation Committee. On June 25, 2015, the Central Land Expropriation Committee made a decision on the objection with the content of increasing partial compensation.

E. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate on September 16, 2014 due to the instant ruling of expropriation.

F. The Defendants are occupying the instant real estate until now.

G. On May 21, 2012, Defendant B, C, etc. filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking authorization of a land substitution plan and a lawsuit seeking revocation of the designation of a land substitution plan (2012Guhap2434), but the ruling of dismissing the claim was rendered on February 21, 2013, and the said ruling became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Attached Acts and subordinate statutes;