1. The Defendant received KRW 185,200,000 from the Plaintiff simultaneously with the Plaintiff’s payment:

(a) the annexed list;

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff Association”) is an association established for the purpose of implementing a housing reconstruction project by making the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 19,468.90 square meters as the project implementation district for maintaining housing units, and was granted authorization for establishment on October 8, 2008 by the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and authorization for project implementation on January 26, 2012 by the head of Seodaemun-gu.

B. On March 23, 2012, the Plaintiff Union publicly announced the application for parcelling-out and made the members who agreed to establish an association apply for parcelling-out by May 17, 2012. The Defendant, who owned real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) within the said rearrangement project zone, obtained the membership qualification with consent to the establishment of the Plaintiff Association, but did not apply for parcelling-out by the expiration date.

C. At the time of May 18, 2012, the market price of the instant real estate is KRW 185,200,000.

On the other hand, on October 5, 2005, the registration of creation of a mortgage (hereinafter “registration of creation of a mortgage of this case”) with the mortgagee as the Korean Slovasty Bank Co., Ltd. as the mortgagee, the establishment of a mortgage of this case, the maximum debt amount of which is KRW 60 million on October 5, 2005, and KRW 34,026,000 on October 28, 2008, was completed.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), appraiser D's appraisal result, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff union's assertion that the plaintiff union did not file an application for parcelling-out by the expiration date of the period for application for parcelling-out and became a cash liquidation agent, and the plaintiff union shall exercise the right to sell under Article 39 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter "Urban Improvement Act") against the defendant by serving

Therefore, in the amount equivalent to the market price of the real estate of this case as cash settlement money from the plaintiff, the defendant constitutes the defendant's share of the maintenance project costs incurred during the period in which the defendant possessed the status as a member.