1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B received KRW 95,000,000 from the Plaintiff and simultaneously entered in Section 1 of the attached Table.

1. Facts of recognition;

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 an authorization to implement the project on December 7, 201 from the head of Dongjak-gu, and the authorization to implement the management and disposal plan on May 30, 2014, 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 of shareholders 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 Dongjak-gu on October 17, 2014, and the notification was made on October 23, 2014.

On the other hand, the defendants occupy and use each part of the real estate listed in the attached list in the plaintiff's project implementation district, as stated in the attached list.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 4 (including paper numbers), Gap evidence 5-1, 4, 5, and Gap evidence 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to Article 49(6) of the Act on the Determination of the Grounds for Claims, when a notice of the above management and disposal plan is given, the owners, persons with superficies, persons with superficies, right to lease, etc. of the previous land or buildings lose their rights to use and benefit from the lease. Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to deliver each real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the disposition to the Plaintiff, barring

B. The Defendants asserted that the Defendants’ right to defense of simultaneous performance cannot be transferred to the pertinent real estate before receiving the lease deposit from the Plaintiff.

According to Article 44 (1) and (2) of the Urban Improvement Act, if it is impossible to achieve the purpose of a lease contract due to the implementation of an improvement project, the lessee may terminate the lease contract and claim the return of the lease deposit.