A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and improvement project association which has obtained authorization for the establishment of the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Mapo District as a project implementation district under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, and the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government grants authorization for the housing reconstruction project implemented by the Plaintiff

6. 9. The notice was made.

B. The Defendant leased and possessed the real estate listed in the attached list in the said project implementation district in KRW 3,00,000 and KRW 220,000 per month.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above findings of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate listed in the attached list to the plaintiff pursuant to Articles 48-2(1) and 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

B. The defendant's assertion 1) asserts that the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim before the refund of the deposit for lease of the real estate listed in the separate sheet. Thus, the defendant can seek the return of the deposit amount of KRW 3,00,000 against the plaintiff who is the project implementer. The defendant's duty of delivery and the plaintiff's duty to return the deposit amount are in a simultaneous performance relationship. Therefore, the above argument of the defendant is reasonable. 2) The defendant also asserts that the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim before receiving the above money for business compensation, since the defendant operated the real estate listed in the separate sheet as a salary provision place, and invested the premium of KRW 4,00,000,000, and the facility

The above assertion seems to be a claim for the payment of expropriation compensation under Article 49(6) of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and Article 40 of the Act on the Compensation therefor. However, the proviso of Article 49(6) of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor is to be made to the project implementer under the Public Works Act