1. The defendant shall receive KRW 85 million from the plaintiff, and at the same time real estate listed in the attached Table 5 to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 31, 2011, the Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment project partnership that has obtained authorization to establish an association from the Gu government market pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) for the purpose of promoting a housing redevelopment project with respect to 132,521.4 square meters in U.S. in Dong-si.

(F) The above area was changed to 132,479.8 square meters after the above approval was granted.

With respect to the housing redevelopment project, the Plaintiff received the authorization to implement the project on March 31, 2015 from the Gu government market, and the authorization to implement the project on November 4, 2016 respectively.

C. On November 4, 2016, the Gu government market published the approval plan for the management and disposal in the official bulletin at the time of the government. D.

The defendant occupies the real estate in the attached Form 5 list located within the above housing redevelopment project zone.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1 through 4, 5-5, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. When the approval of a management and disposal plan is publicly announced in a housing redevelopment project with respect to the cause of the claim, the owner, superficies, leaseer, etc. of the previous land or structure may not use or profit from the previous land or structure in accordance with the management and disposal plan. On the other hand, the project implementer may directly acquire the right to use or profit from the previous land or structure within the housing redevelopment project zone even in order to remove the existing structure. Thus, the Plaintiff acquired the right to use or profit from the above real estate on November 4, 2016, which is the date

Therefore, the defendant should deliver the above real estate possessed by himself to the plaintiff unless there are special circumstances.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s duty to deliver the above real estate and the Plaintiff’s duty to return lease deposit have a simultaneous performance relationship.

According to Article 44 (1) and (2) of the Urban Improvement Act, a lease contract is concluded by implementing a rearrangement project.