2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

A. The Defendant is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association whose project implementation district covers 58,350 square meters in Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu, and obtained authorization for the implementation of the project on June 19, 2008 from the head of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and authorization for the alteration of the project on February 22, 2011, respectively, and received the authorization for the implementation of the project on March 11, 201.

B. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Selected D (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Plaintiffs”) were the owners of the land in the above business area, and were the Defendant’s members. However, from January 31, 2013, the period for concluding the sales contract, the same year.

2. 5. Failure to conclude a contract for sale in lots, and thus became subject to cash settlement in accordance with the articles of incorporation of the Defendant Union on February 6, 2013.

C. On December 19, 2011, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and others seeking delivery of land and building.

(Seoul Eastern District Court 201Kadan81986). During the lawsuit, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) agreed to deliver the land and buildings to the Defendant on April 30, 2012 by May 12, 2012. Accordingly, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) moved to the land and buildings on May 10, 2012, and the Defendant withdrawn the said lawsuit on May 15, 2012.

On April 2, 2012, 2012, D did not expressly agree with the Defendant, and the decision on delivery of land and buildings was rendered (Seoul East Eastern District Court Decision 201Da50944, May 26, 2012), and the Appointor D removed the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) from the business that A leaves.

On June 2012, the defendant removed the buildings that the plaintiffs left.

On October 24, 2014, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal rendered a ruling on the commencement date of expropriation on December 12, 2014.

On December 11, 2014, which was before the date of commencement of expropriation prescribed by the above ruling ( December 12, 2014), the Defendant deposited each of the compensation with the Plaintiffs as the deposited parties.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including each number), Eul evidence 1 to 8, and arguments.