1. The part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked:

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a reconstruction association established for the purpose of removing the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building for A commercial buildings and officetels (hereinafter “A building”) and constructing new commercial buildings and officetels.

B. The Defendants are co-owners of No. 1315 of the 12th floor of a building A (hereinafter “instant building”).

The Defendants, on April 1, 201, leased the instant building to the Plaintiff with KRW 10,00,000 as lease deposit, and the period from April 1, 201 to March 31, 2012, and the rent was KRW 700,000 per month (excluding value-added tax).

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). However, the proviso of the instant building lease agreement (No. 1) added the proviso to “use as a reconstruction association’s office and as a condition of use until before removal.”

C. The Plaintiff used the instant building as a partnership’s office on August 31, 2012, and moved the partnership’s office from the instant building to B108, and held a A reconstruction Association’s board of directors and A management management steering committee.

Plaintiff

On August 20, 2012, before the relocation of the partnership office, the head of the partnership and the staff D of the management office made notification of the termination of the building lease contract of this case to Defendant B.

On August 13, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for conciliation against the Defendants, C, etc. for the implementation of the procedures for ownership transfer registration with respect to some of the sectionalized buildings, including the instant building, by Seoul Central District Court 2013s.52.

On November 8, 2013, the court rendered a decision in lieu of conciliation on the fact that the Defendants received the payment of the purchase price from the Plaintiff, and simultaneously implemented the procedure for ownership transfer registration for part of the building A, including the instant building, to the Plaintiff. The said decision became final and conclusive around that time.

E. On December 20, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant building as a result of conciliation after having deposited the Defendants as deposited money.

F. The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff.