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 D branch.

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. Defendant B is residing in the building listed in the attached Table 4, and Defendant C leased the building listed in the attached Table 5 from the lessor E to KRW 1,000,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 5 evidence, Eul 1 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 of the previous land or building, lessee, etc. shall be suspended, and the project implementer may use and profit from the same. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are obligated to deliver

B. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s argument that the above Defendant could not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim before the refund of the lease deposit. As such, 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, 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, and thus, the above Defendant’s argument is reasonable. Therefore, the above Defendant C is obliged to receive KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff and deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff at the same time.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is justified. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant C is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit.