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

A. Relevant Defendant B is the owner of each real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 and 2, and Defendant C and D are the owners of 1/2 shares of each real estate listed in the separate sheet 3 and 4, and the Plaintiff is a corporation incorporated by the Act on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) in order to remove each of the above real estate and implement housing reconstruction improvement projects.

B. As the instant detached houses, such as authorization to establish a rearrangement zone and authorization for modification, become old and inferior, some owners established the Plaintiff association with the size of 173 members, 204 households to be constructed, 12,389.25 square meters, and the size of the site was 12,389.25 square meters under the former Housing Construction Promotion Act, and completed the registration of incorporation after obtaining authorization for establishment from the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on June 30, 2003. After consultation to promote a reconstruction project by combining neighboring areas, the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government obtained designation and a topographic map from the head of the Seoul Metropolitan Government on December 12, 2013, and obtained authorization for establishment from the head of the Gangnam-gu Office on June 28, 2014 after undergoing the procedure for resolution for change of establishment on June 28, 2014.

C. The highest Plaintiff Union urged the Defendants to respond to the reply on July 23, 2014 regarding the consent to the establishment of the Plaintiff Union’s modified association, etc. in order to exercise the right to demand sale under Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act and Article 48 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “the Aggregate Buildings Act”) against the Defendants who own each of the instant real estate within the instant project zone. The highest letter was sent to Defendant B on October 27, 2014, and Defendant C and D on July 24, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 7 are available.