1. The defendants receive each of the money stated in the table "sale price" column from the plaintiff (attached Form 1).

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and maintenance project partnership under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) that completed the establishment registration on March 16, 2015 with the approval from the head of Seocho-gu Office on March 9, 2015 for the establishment of a housing reconstruction project (hereinafter “instant reconstruction project”) in the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F Group. The Defendants are owners of each relevant real estate listed in the column of “attached Form 2” within the instant reconstruction project zone (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On May 14, 2015, after obtaining authorization to establish the association, the Plaintiff sent a written peremptory notice to the Defendants as to whether to participate in the instant reconstruction project within two months, and each of the above written peremptory notice reached the Defendants around that time. However, the Defendants did not reply to the above written peremptory notice within the above period.

C. The Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to exercise the right to demand sale by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint on the Defendants, and the duplicate of the instant complaint was served on November 9, 2015 respectively on the Defendants.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including each number, if any) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In a case where a project implementer, who did not participate in a housing reconstruction project, exercises the right to demand sale under the Urban Improvement Act, a sales contract is established based on the market price on the land or building of a person who did not participate in the housing reconstruction project at the same time when the intent to exercise the right to demand sale reaches the conclusion of the right to demand sale and at the same time a sales contract is concluded (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da21549, 2156, 21563, Mar. 26, 2009). According to the foregoing basic facts, the Plaintiff is under Article 39 of the former Urban Improvement Act (Amended by Act No. 12738, Jun. 4, 2015; hereinafter “former Urban Improvement Act”) and Article 39 of the former Urban