A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and consolidation project association whose project implementation district covers the Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Group C.

The head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government approved the management and disposal plan on June 3, 2016, and announced it on June 9, 2016.

B. The Defendant leased and resided the instant real estate in the said project implementation district in KRW 27,00,000,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 5 evidence, Eul 1, 3 and 4 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to Article 49(6) and (3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), when the approval of the management and disposal plan is publicly notified, the use and profit-making by the right holder, such as the owner and lessee of the previous land or building, shall be suspended, and the project implementer may use and profit from the same. Thus, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant

B. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s argument that the Defendant cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim before the refund of the lease deposit. Thus, the Plaintiff’s obligation to return the lease deposit and the Defendant’s obligation to deliver the real estate of this case, which is the project implementer, pursuant to Article 44(1) and (2) of the Urban Improvement Act, are in a simultaneous performance relationship under the principle of equity, as it is based on the same factual and legal relationship, such as the implementation of the housing reconstruction project and the termination of the lease agreement. Therefore, the Defendant’s argument is reasonable. 2) Furthermore, the Defendant’s demand for the payment of the director’s expenses cannot be found in the housing reconstruction project of this case, on the contrary to the fact that the Defendant is seeking the payment of the director’s expenses, and this cannot be asserted as a ground for defense in the civil procedure, apart from the fact that it is based on the administrative litigation for the legal relationship of the public law.