1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B: (a) the buildings listed in the annexed sheet No. 1;

B. Defendant C is a building listed in the separate sheet No. 2. C.

1. Factual basis

A. The Plaintiff obtained authorization for the establishment of a housing redevelopment project (hereinafter “instant redevelopment project”) with the head of the Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City on April 28, 2006 in order to implement the housing redevelopment project (hereinafter “instant redevelopment project”) as a zone for the F-Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City improvement project (hereinafter “instant redevelopment project”), and obtained authorization for the implementation plan on May 12, 2010, and obtained authorization for the change of the project implementation plan on August 29, 2014, and obtained the application for

B. On July 20, 2015, the Plaintiff received the approval of the management and disposal plan from the head of the Dong, and the head of Dong/Dong publicly notified the approval of the management and disposal plan on July 29, 2015.

C. Defendant B is the building indicated in the separate sheet No. 1; Defendant C is the building listed in the separate sheet No. 2; Defendant D is the owner of the building listed in the separate sheet No. 3; and Defendant E is the owner of each building listed in the separate sheet No. 4; each of the above buildings is within the instant redevelopment project zone; the Defendants did not apply for the entire application for the sale.

On February 20, 2017, the Busan Metropolitan City Regional Land Expropriation Committee decided to expropriate each building listed in the separate sheet on May 4, 2017, the date of expropriation. On May 1, 2017, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 156,03,30 to Defendant B, KRW 18,200,000 to Defendant C, and KRW 188,20,000 to Defendant D, and KRW 184,60,000 to Defendant E.

[Based on recognition] Evidence A 1, Evidence A 2, Evidence A 3-1, 2, 3, 4, and Evidence A 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the defendants' defense prior to the merits

A. The Defendants asserted that the instant lawsuit is unlawful, since the Plaintiff’s filing of the instant lawsuit before making a deposit pursuant to the adjudication of acceptance constitutes abuse of the right of lawsuit, and it is against the good faith to change the cause of the claim to the completion of deposit pursuant to the adjudication of acceptance to the completion of the adjudication of acceptance.

As above, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff abused the right of action on the ground that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit prior to the expropriation ruling or deposit.

Since then, the plaintiff will withdraw the lawsuit.