1. The Plaintiff:

(a) Defendant B: each of the real estate listed in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the Schedule of Attached Real Estate;

B. Defendant C shall be attached hereto.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each statement of evidence Nos. 1 to 10 and evidence No. 1 to 10.

The plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association whose business area covers Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the "Urban Improvement Act"), and the defendants are the owners and occupants of the relevant real estate

B. The Plaintiff received authorization from the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Office to establish an association on April 27, 2010, and authorization to implement a project on November 26, 2013, respectively, and on March 18, 2016, the Plaintiff’s management and disposal plan was approved and announced on March 24, 2016.

C. On October 28, 2016, upon the Plaintiff’s request, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal rendered a ruling of expropriation as of December 16, 2016 on the commencement date of expropriation. Accordingly, the Plaintiff accordingly, on December 14, 2016, and the same month.

7. The Defendant C deposited the full amount of compensation set forth in the above ruling as each of the principal deposits, and on February 27, 2017, Defendant B deposited the resettlement funds, housing relocation expenses, and movable property transfer expenses with the principal deposit account.

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the determination on the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff is an implementer who has received the authorization of the management and disposal plan under the Urban Improvement Act, and the Defendants are the owners and occupants of the pertinent real estate in the rearrangement zone. If the management and disposal plan is authorized and publicly announced pursuant to Article 49(3) and (6) of the Urban Improvement Act, the use and profit of the right holders, such as the owner and lessee of the previous building, etc. is suspended. Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to deliver the pertinent real estate to the Plaintiff

B. As to the determination of the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendant did not receive the compensation for losses, and the project implementation plan and management and disposal plan are invalid, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with.

In this regard, the plaintiff deposited the loss as determined by the expropriation ruling.