(a) the annexed list;

A. The Plaintiff was established for the reconstruction improvement project of the size of 52,476 square meters in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), on December 21, 2007, and was granted authorization for the project implementation on December 12, 2008 by the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and authorization for the change of the project implementation on April 16, 2013, respectively.

B. The Defendants owned 1/2 shares of each of the instant real estate located within the said rearrangement project zone, and consented to the establishment of the Plaintiff’s association.

C. From May 30, 2013 to July 28, 2013, the Plaintiff received an application for parcelling-out from a cooperative member, and extended the period to August 11, 2013 (hereinafter “first application for parcelling-out”); again, received an additional application for parcelling-out from April 29, 2014 to May 16, 2014 (hereinafter “second application for parcelling-out”).

However, the defendants did not apply for parcelling-out during the period of each of the above applications for parcelling-out.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 6, 8, 10 to 16, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff did not apply for parcelling-out after consenting to the establishment of the Plaintiff association, thereby losing the status of the Plaintiff’s member. Accordingly, the Plaintiff exercised the right to demand a sale by applying mutatis mutandis Article 39 of the Act

Therefore, at the same time, the Defendants are obliged to pay the pertinent liquidation money to the Plaintiff at the time of receiving the said liquidation money from the Plaintiff, to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership in a state where there is no limitation of rights due to the sale as of August 12, 2013, following the date following the date following the date of completion of the first application for the first sale of each of the instant real estate, which is the date following the date of completion of the second application for the second sale, and to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendants’ assertion that the Defendants lost their membership should be deemed to be “when the application for the second application for parcelling-out is terminated,” which is the time when they were able to maintain their membership status.