A. As prescribed by 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 consolidation project association established for the purpose of removing existing buildings on the ground from the Daegu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Mil and constructing new buildings on the land and approved by the head of the Dong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City.

B. The Defendants owned each of the real estate listed in [Attachment 2-12] real estate list within the housing reconstruction improvement zone, as shown in the attached Table 1’s execution statement.

C. After approving the establishment of an association, the Plaintiff obtained the consent to establish an association from the owners of land, etc. in the housing reconstruction improvement zone, and obtained the authorization from the head of Daegu Metropolitan City Dong-gu on February 4, 2014.

On February 19, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants of whether they agree to the change of the establishment in relation to the change of the establishment in accordance with Article 39 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Article 48 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings”).

Around that time, the notice sent by the Plaintiff was served on Defendant C, D, E, G, H, I, J, K, and L. However, the said Defendants did not answer whether they consented to the lapse of two months thereafter.

E. Meanwhile, the peremptory notice against Defendant B and F was not served on the said Defendants.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff, through the complaint of this case, notified the above Defendants about whether they agree to the change of the establishment of the association, and at the same time, expressed their intent to request sale of each real estate listed in the attached Forms 2 and 6, which are owned by the above Defendants, on the condition of suspension that they did not reply within two months from the date of receipt of the above notice.

The director against Defendant B served on November 28, 2014 by public notice in 0:00, and against Defendant F.