A. On July 6, 2012, the Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction association under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), which completed establishment registration on July 25, 2012, for the purpose of promoting a reconstruction project of the Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I Group (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”).

The Defendants are those who own each of the relevant real estate in the attached Table 1 column.

B. On September 4, 2012, the Plaintiff’s maximum consent to the establishment of an association and the Plaintiff’s right to demand sale (1) on September 4, 2012, Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act and the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings (hereinafter “Aggregate

(2) On September 24, 2012, when exercising the right to demand sale by the instant lawsuit on September 24, 2012, the Plaintiff expressed its intent to substitute for the said peremptory notice by the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint where the Plaintiff’s said peremptory notice is unlawful, while exercising the right to demand sale by the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff expressed its intent to substitute for the said peremptory notice by the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint where the said peremptory notice is unlawful.

3) The duplicate of the instant complaint was served on the date indicated in [Attachment 1] “the delivery date of the duplicate of the complaint” to each of the Defendants on the date indicated in [based on recognition] : (i) Defendant B, C, Incorporated Foundation D, E, and F: the absence of dispute; and (ii) Gap 1 through 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply).

each entry, the purport of the entire pleadings, as to Defendant G and H: Judgment by deeming confession (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. Defendant B, C, and Incorporated Foundation D.