A. Defendant B received KRW 30,000,000 from the Plaintiff and simultaneously entered in the attached Table 1.

A. On August 8, 2008, the Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and improvement project association that has obtained authorization for the establishment of the Seoul Nowon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Nowon-gu D project zone under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), and obtained authorization for the implementation of the project on August 19, 201 from the head of Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, subject to authorization for the implementation of the project on August 19, 201, subject to authorization for the management and disposal plan on December 12, 20

B. The Defendants are the lessees of each of the relevant real estate specified in Paragraph (1) of the same Article within the project zone, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including branch numbers), the whole purport of the pleading

2. The parties' arguments and the judgment on them

A. Article 49(6) of the Act on the Determination of the Grounds for Claim provides that “When a management and disposal plan is authorized and such public notice is given, the owner of the previous land or building, lessee, etc. shall not use or benefit from the previous land or building until the date of public notice of relocation under Article 54.”

Therefore, according to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants, whose use and profit has been suspended as the possessor of each of the real estate listed in Paragraph (1) of this Article pursuant to the authorization and public notice of management and disposition plan, are obligated to deliver each of the pertinent real estate as stated in Paragraph (1) of this Article to the Plaintiff who acquired the above real estate

B. As to the determination of Defendant B’s assertion, Defendant B cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim prior to the refund of the lease deposit amount of KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff.

As the defendant did not dispute the plaintiff's above argument, the defendant Eul did not dispute the plaintiff's above argument, and the defendant Eul paid 30 million won the lease deposit from the plaintiff.