2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Defendant is a cooperative established for the purpose of implementing the housing reconstruction improvement project B (hereinafter “instant project”). The Plaintiff is a four commercial building owners of D apartment A32, A34, A35, A36, located within the instant rearrangement zone (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).

B. The Defendant established a draft of the management and disposal plan and resolved on the draft of the management and disposal plan at the general meeting held on January 31, 2015 (hereinafter “instant management and disposal plan”). Of the instant management and disposal plan, the appraisal of the previous property of the instant commercial building conducted by the national appraisal corporation (hereinafter “Ba appraisal”) and the appraisal corporation of the stock company (hereinafter “Daehan”) are as follows.

The average of the values of the appraisal (won) of the countries at issue 1 A32 Nos. 96,30,000,000 98,50,500,400,000 2 A34 140,900,600,000 145,600,250,250,003 A35 335,77,000,000 78,800,777,900,000,000 77,900,000,000 4 A36 No. 830,30,82,100,000,81,200, 394,50,000,4005,009, 390,750, 700, 100, or 136, etc. of the entire arguments

2. Whether the management and disposal plan of this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant appraisal is deemed to be a shop subject to comparison, No. 107-1 of E of the first floor E of Changwon-si transacteded on November 29, 2013 (hereinafter “instant shop subject to comparison”).

B. The comparison was conducted as shown in the foregoing table. On June 30, 2014, the announcement date of project implementation authorization, even though there were transaction cases on the 1st floor of D apartment, as shown in the following table, the comparison was not the comparison, and the comparison commercial building of this case was selected as the comparison and appraised at a price lower than the actual transaction price.