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 Group C.

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. The Defendant leased and resided the instant real estate located within the said project implementation district in the name of D, the husband, in the name of KRW 23,000,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 5 evidence, Eul 1, 3 and 4 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 and lessee of the previous land or building, shall be suspended, and the project implementer may use and profit from the same. Thus, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant

B. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s argument that the Defendant cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim before the refund of the lease deposit. Thus, 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 Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, are in a simultaneous performance relationship under the principle of equity, as it is based on the same factual and legal relationship as the implementation of the housing reconstruction project and the termination of the lease agreement. Therefore, the Defendant’s argument is with merit. Furthermore, the Defendant asserts that the payment of the expenses for moving a house, such as director’s expenses, is also asserted. However, in the instant housing reconstruction project, the Plaintiff cannot find the grounds for claiming the director’s expenses to the Plaintiff in the instant housing reconstruction project, and this can be asserted as grounds for defense in the civil lawsuit,