A. Defendant B received KRW 64,266,667 from the Plaintiff, at the same time, real estate listed in the attached Table.

A. The Plaintiff is the implementer of the A-Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project whose business area covers the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F 25,204 square meters.

On June 24, 2014, the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office approved the management and disposal plan for the housing redevelopment improvement project applied by the Plaintiff, and publicly notified the authorization of the management and disposal plan on July 3, 2014.

B. Of the real estate (G, H ownership) in the attached list located in the above project zone, Defendant B is running businesses, including restaurants, by leasing and leasing the part as set forth in the attached list (G, H ownership), the part as set out in paragraph (1)(c) of the order of the Defendant C, the part as set out in paragraph (1)(f) of the order of the Defendant D, the part as set out in paragraph (1) of the order of the Defendant D, and the part as set out in paragraph (1)(f) of the order of the Defendant E (in sequence referred to as

C. On February 28, 2013, the Plaintiff agreed to move KRW 50,200,000 as business compensation (transfer cost) between Defendant E and Defendant B, and KRW 44,266,667 as business compensation (transfer cost) between Defendant B and Defendant B on October 25, 2013, the said Defendants agreed to move within the resettlement period designated by the Plaintiff.

On April 4, 2014, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 33,970,000,00 for business compensation by making Defendant C as a deposit in accordance with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Local Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on February 14, 2014.

【Ground of recognition】 In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Gap evidence Nos. 6 and 7-1, 2, Gap evidence No. 8, and Eul evidence No. 9-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. If an agreement on compensation between a project operator and a lessee is reached, the obligation to pay compensation and the obligation of the lessee to deliver real estate simultaneously is related to the simultaneous performance, and the procedure to pay business compensation prior to the delivery of real estate should be prior to the delivery of real estate in accordance with the adjudication procedure.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da28394, Nov. 24, 2011). According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant B and E are obligated to deliver each of the instant sub-sections to the Plaintiff, and the instant sub-sections to the Plaintiff at the same time as receiving each of the business compensation from the Plaintiff.