1. The Defendant shall pay 90 million won to the Plaintiff and 20% per annum from April 29, 2014 to the date of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association that obtained authorization pursuant to Article 16 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) on January 26, 2007 for the purpose of implementing the A-Housing Redevelopment and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), and the Defendant is the Plaintiff’s member as the owner of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D-dong Housing with a size of 100 square meters and its ground third-story housing and neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. The Plaintiff obtained authorization for the implementation of the project on September 20, 2007; obtained authorization for the implementation of the project on March 14, 2013; and obtained authorization for the management and disposal plan from the head of Seongdong-gu Seoul on February 27, 2014; and the head of Seongdong-gu on the same day publicly announced the details thereof pursuant to Article 49(3) of the Act on Urban Improvement.

C. On July 10, 2012, the Defendant leased to E the second floor of the instant building KRW 90 million as the deposit for the lease, and the lease period from August 30, 2012 to August 29, 2014. After the implementation of the said improvement project, E may terminate the contract if it is impossible for E to achieve the purpose of creation of superficies, chonsegwon, or right of lease due to the implementation of a rearrangement project under Article 44(2) and (1) of the Urban Improvement Act.

The right to request the return of the key money, deposit, and other money under contract held by a person entitled to terminate the contract under the provisions of paragraph (2) may be exercised on the project operator.

Pursuant to B, the Plaintiff, the implementer of the rearrangement project, claimed the return of the lease deposit, and the Plaintiff paid the lease deposit amount of KRW 90 million to E on April 11, 2014.

[Grounds for Recognition: The entries in the evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

(a) Article 44 (3) of the Urban Improvement Act shall apply to the owners of relevant lands, etc., who have paid the relevant money following an excercise of right to request a return under paragraph (2);