1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant C, real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2, Defendant C, and Defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association established with the total area of 174,801 square meters in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as a project implementation district, and was authorized to implement the project on December 21, 2009 by the head of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government. On December 10, 2015, the Plaintiff received an approval for the implementation of the project under Article 49(2) and (3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”). At that time, the Plaintiff publicly announced

B. The Defendants occupy each corresponding part of the text within the implementation zone of the rearrangement project.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. According to Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, when the Plaintiff claims against the Defendants the name of the building under Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, when the approval of the management and disposal plan is publicly announced in relation to the urban rearrangement project, the owner of the previous land or building and the right holder such as the lessee cannot use or profit from the land or building, and the project implementer can use or benefit from the land or building. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are obligated to deliver

3. Examining the Defendants’ assertion as to the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants asserted that they cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim until receiving the compensation for losses as prescribed in Article 49(6) of the Urban Improvement Act, and considering the overall purport of the pleadings in addition to the entries in the evidence Nos. 8 and 9, the Plaintiff was recognized as having deposited the said Defendants as the principal deposit and completed the compensation for losses under the Urban Improvement Act. Therefore, the aforementioned Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

4. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified and all of them are accepted.