A. Defendant B received KRW 15,000,000 from the Plaintiff and simultaneously entered in Annex 1 List 1 Paragraph 1.

A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction association established pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) to implement a housing reconstruction project in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E.

B. On August 12, 2010, the Plaintiff obtained authorization from the head of Dongjak-gu and completed the registration of incorporation on August 13, 2010.

C. Since then, the Plaintiff received the authorization to implement the project on December 7, 201 from the head of Gangnam-gu and the authorization to implement the management and disposal plan on May 30, 2014, respectively, and the said authorization to implement the management and disposal plan was publicly notified on June 12, 2014.

In addition, on September 1, 2014, the Plaintiff held a general meeting on September 1, 2014 to present and resolve the case of approval for the amendment of the management and disposition plan, and then obtained the authorization for the amendment of the management and disposition plan from the head of Gangnam-gu Office on October 17, 2014, which was publicly notified on October 23, 2014.

On the other hand, the Defendants are occupying and using each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 in the Plaintiff’s project implementation district by lending or leasing it.

【Ground of Recognition】 Defendant B and C: The absence of dispute against the Defendant, each entry of Party A’s Evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings: Presumption of Confession

2. Determination

A. According to Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas, when the above management and disposal plan is publicly announced, the owners, superficies, lease right holders, etc. of the previous land or buildings lose their rights to use and benefit from lease. Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to deliver each of the pertinent real estate to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

B. Defendant B and C asserted that they cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim before the business compensation or directors’ compensation is granted, but in the case of housing reconstruction projects such as this case, the proviso of Article 49(6) of the Act on Urban Improvement, unlike other rearrangement projects, provided that they obtain the consent of the project implementer or obtain the land, etc. for Article 40 and public works.