A. Under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), the Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and rearrangement project association established for the purpose of implementing a housing reconstruction and rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”) with the content of removing old and inferior existing buildings located within the area of 59,673.80 square meters (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”) of Daegu-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

On October 28, 2016, the Plaintiff obtained authorization to establish an association from the head of Daegu Metropolitan City, the head of the Gu and completed the establishment registration on October 31, 2016.

B. The Defendant is the owner of the real estate indicated in the “B real estate indication” column in the attached list in the instant rearrangement zone (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and did not consent to the establishment of an association.

On the other hand, the real estate in this case is completed with each limitation of rights as stated in the attached list No. 3.

C. On January 26, 2017, the Plaintiff sent by mail a peremptory notice to the Defendant stating that “The Plaintiff shall reply to the consent to establish an association within two months from the date of receipt of the peremptory notice to the consent to establish an association under the Urban Improvement Act, and if there is no reply within the said period, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have no consent to establish an association under the said Act and shall file a claim for sale of real estate under his/her ownership based on the appraised amount.” However, the Plaintiff was not served on the Defendant because his/her address is unknown.

The Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the reply to whether he/she will participate in the instant rearrangement project, and the Defendant was served with a complaint on May 24, 2017, but did not reply within two months from that time.

E. Meanwhile, the market price of each of the instant real estate as of July 25, 2017, following the expiration of the maximum period of two months from the date of delivery of the complaint, is reconstructed.