1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B is at the same time returned KRW 90,000,000 from the Plaintiff and at the same time indicated in attached Table 1.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the plaintiff is a housing reconstruction improvement project association established to implement a housing reconstruction improvement project in the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G G, and the approval for establishment of the association on June 26, 2012 is granted on August 22, 2013, and the head of Mapo-gu has obtained authorization for the implementation of the project on August 3, 2016 and publicly notified the management and disposal plan on June 3, 2016 by the head of Mapo-gu. The defendant C is the owner of the real estate listed in the attached Table No. 2 located in the said rebuilding improvement project zone, and the remaining defendants are each recognized as the lessees who reside in the housing reconstruction improvement project after leasing the real estate listed in the attached

The main text of Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) provides that “When the authorization of a management and disposal plan is publicly announced, owners, superficies, leasers, etc. of the previous land or buildings may not use or profit from the previous land or buildings until the date of public announcement of relocation under Article 54.” Thus, the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly notified the authorization of a management and disposal plan on June 3, 2016 to the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendants are obligated to deliver each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet within the implementation zone of the above improvement project to the Plaintiff

Defendant B and E asserted to the effect that they cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request until the refund of each real estate lease deposit is made. In full view of the purport of the argument in the evidence No. 1 and No. 1 in the evidence No. 1 and No. 1, Defendant B held the lessor’s claim for the refund of the lease deposit amount of KRW 90 million against H (However, the lease contract was written by Defendant B as lessee). Defendant E holds the lessor’s claim for the refund of the lease deposit amount of KRW 80 million against J.