The judgment of the first instance court is modified as follows.

A. The defendant shall receive KRW 10 million from the plaintiff at the same time.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the first instance are as follows, given that the court’s reasoning is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the first instance except for the following “the part which is dismissed or added.” Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. To delete the part of the first instance judgment, which is dismissed or added, No. 13 and No. 14 of the 3rd instance judgment, and to add the following:

The defendant asserts that the real estate of this case cannot be transferred before receiving a refund of 23 million won of the facility expenses, such as the lease deposit of 10 million won and the construction expenses incurred by the defendant in order to operate the coffee specialty.

First of all, there is no ground to claim the plaintiff with respect to the facility cost claimed by the defendant, and this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

According to the overall purport of the theory of health deposit, Eul (B) evidence No. 1, and changes in the lease deposit, the defendant concluded a lease contract with a deposit of KRW 10 million on the real estate of this case, and paid the lease deposit to the lessor.

Article 70 (1) and (2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions may exercise the right to claim the return of the lease deposit in the event that the contract terminates because the purpose of the lease is not achieved due to the implementation of the relevant improvement project.

According to the provision, the defendant can seek the return of the lease deposit for the real estate in this case to the plaintiff, who is the implementer of the improvement project.

Since the Defendant’s duty to deliver the instant real estate and the Plaintiff’s duty to return the lease deposit are in the simultaneous performance relationship, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff at the same time with the Plaintiff’s repayment of KRW 10 million.

[....]

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable within the above scope of recognition, and thus, it should be accepted, and the remaining claims should be dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.