1. The Defendant’s KRW 625,192 as well as to the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from July 20, 2018 to August 23, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) Project name: B Housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”);

(2) The name, location, area, etc. of the rearrangement zone: C Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project Zone; D 103,941 square meters (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”); and three areas, including 103,941 square meters (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”); public announcement for public inspection of residents for the formulation of the rearrangement zone; hereinafter “public announcement for public inspection of residents for the designation of the rearrangement zone.”).

(iv) Date: Public notice of project implementation authorization on January 21, 2008: Defendant

B. On August 21, 1999, the Plaintiff’s female residents purchased five-story neighborhood living facilities and housing (hereinafter “instant building”) located in the area of the instant improvement zone and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s head, and the Plaintiff’s head, and the Plaintiff’s head, and the Plaintiff’s head, H, and the next South I completed each move-in report on April 5, 2006 at the location of the instant building. The Plaintiff and H transferred each of them on August 16, 2016, and I transferred each of them to May 2, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 8, 9, and 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the defendant's dwelling relocation expenses and director's non-payment obligations exist

A. On March 10, 2006, the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a lease agreement with F, the owner of the instant building, and the five storys of the instant building (1.78С) with KRW 25 million on the day of the contract, and paid KRW 5 million out of the lease deposit on the day of the contract. The remainder of the lease deposit KRW 20 million under the F’s understanding that the Plaintiff shall pay the remainder of the lease deposit in installments due to the Plaintiff’s difficulty in living, and paid in cash the sum of KRW 50,000,000 which is less than KRW 10 to 200,000,000,000 in total, which is KRW 10 to 2 million.

As such, although the Plaintiff failed to perform its duty to pay the lease deposit, it is clear that it constitutes a tenant who uses part of the building of this case by paying the lease deposit, and at the time of the public announcement of this case.