1. The defendant shall receive KRW 21,000,000 from the plaintiff, and at the same time real estate stated in the attached Table to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and consolidation project association whose project implementation district covers the Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Group C.

The head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government approved the management and disposition plan of the plaintiff on June 3, 2016 and announced it on June 9, 2016.

B. The Defendant is a lessee who leased the instant real estate in the said project implementation district in KRW 21,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,600,000, and paid KRW 21,00,000 to the lessor as the lease deposit, and up to now, operated the instant house and occupied the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant, a lessee of the instant real estate located within the Plaintiff’s project implementation district, has a duty to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts to the effect that he cannot accept the plaintiff's claim until he receives a refund of KRW 21,00,000,000. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the obligation to return the lease deposit of the real estate of this case that the plaintiff, who is the project implementer, bears to the defendant, who is the lessee pursuant to Article 44 (1) and (2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and the obligation to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff is based on the same legal relationship as the execution of the housing reconstruction project and the termination of the lease agreement

The defendant's above assertion is with merit.

B. Furthermore, the Defendant alleged that it is impossible to accept the Plaintiff’s claim before receiving the expenses for interior works paid while leasing the instant real estate. However, the statement of evidence Nos. 2 through 4 alone is the cost of interior works claimed by the Defendant.