1. Defendant B received KRW 42,00,000 from the Plaintiff, and at the same time, acquired real estate in attached Table 1 from the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 10, 2007, the Plaintiff is the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association which has obtained approval for the establishment of a housing redevelopment and improvement project under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents from the Gu Ri market on August 10, 2007 for the purpose of promoting a housing redevelopment project of 33,739 square meters in Dong-si, Gyeonggi-do. The Plaintiff was approved by the Gu Ri market on November 3, 2015, and

B. Defendant B resides in the attached list No. 1 located in the Plaintiff’s project implementation district (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and the Defendant C resides in the attached list No. 2 of the same Act (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4 and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

(a) When a management and disposal plan is authorized and publicly announced in a false housing rebuilding improvement project, a right holder, such as the owner, superficies, person having a right to lease, and lessee of the previous land or structure, cannot use or profit from the previous land or structure, but a right to use or benefit from the previous land or structure within the implementation zone of the rearrangement project shall be directly acquired to remove the existing structure, even if the project implementer intends to remove the existing structure;

B. According to the above facts and legal principles, the Plaintiff acquired the right to use and benefit from each real estate listed in the separate sheet on November 3, 2015, which is the public notice date of the approval plan for the management and disposal plan. Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to deliver it to the Plaintiff, except in extenuating

C. As to Defendant B’s assertion, Defendant B’s argument that Defendant B had opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act by leasing the real estate of this case to KRW 55,000,000,000, the deposit amount of KRW 42,000,000, which was not refunded out of the deposit for lease, is the simultaneous performance defense that Defendant B may deliver the real estate of this case.

On April 2010, the Defendant's father and son D's father and son's father and son.