1. The Plaintiff:

(a) Defendant B is the first real estate listed in the Schedule No. 1;

B. Defendant C is from the Plaintiff 10,000.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an urban environment rearrangement project association that has obtained authorization to establish an association from the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government in order to remove old housing located in the rearrangement zone and newly build multi-family housing, etc. by designating the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G

The head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly announced the project implementation authorization on July 26, 2012 for the plaintiff, and the public announcement of the management and disposal plan on July 9, 2015.

B. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet is located in the project implementation district above.

C. Defendant B: (a) leased, occupied, and used the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1; (b) Defendant C leased, occupied, and occupied, respectively, the 2nd floor among the 2nd real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1; (c) Defendant D and E, and Defendant F, respectively.

[Reasons for Recognition] Defendant C, D, and F: Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Defendant B, and E to the entire purport of the pleading

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants, the lessee of each real estate listed in the separate sheet in the execution zone of the Plaintiff Union pursuant to Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, lost the right to use and benefit from the leased portion, and the Plaintiff Union acquired the right to use and benefit from the leased portion to implement the rearrangement project, barring special circumstances, the Defendants are obligated to hand over each leased and used portion.

B. We affirm the assertion of Defendant C, D, and F that the Defendants cannot comply with the above extradition claim due to the failure to complete the compensation procedure.

However, according to the evidence A of Nos. 5 through 9, it is recognized that the compensation procedure has been initiated and the compensation for losses has been paid accordingly.

Therefore, the above argument is difficult to accept.

Next, the above defendants are entitled to compensation for losses.