1. At the same time, the Defendant received KRW 207,700,000 from the Plaintiff, and simultaneously with the Plaintiff:

(a) Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 27, 2003, the Plaintiff obtained authorization to establish a rearrangement zone with the size of 48,775 square meters from the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as an improvement zone. On April 9, 2007, a master plan for the development of a new town zone was formulated on August 19, 2010 with the purport that the Plaintiff’s project implementation district is substantially expanded to 65,148 square meters. On August 19, 2010, the designation of the EF promotion zone and the topographic map was prepared, the Plaintiff obtained the consent of 76.32% from the landowners of the land or building in the altered improvement zone subject to the procedure for consenting to the establishment of an association, and obtained the authorization of the establishment from the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on June 26, 2012.

B. The Defendant is a person who owns only three hundred and fifty-five square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant land”) without a building in the Plaintiff’s improvement zone.

C. On October 21, 2013, the Plaintiff filed with the Defendant a written complaint of this case, stating the Defendant’s expression of intent, with this Court on October 21, 2013, where the Plaintiff notified the Defendant to reply to the establishment of the association, and at the same time, did not consent to the establishment of the association within two months from the date of delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case, pursuant to Article 39 subparag. 1 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) and Article 48 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings”). The copy of the complaint of this case was served on the Defendant on December 8, 2013.

As to this, the Defendant consented to the establishment of the Plaintiff’s association on December 18, 2013, but the purchase price of the instant land must comply with the market price appraisal result.

[Reasons for Recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. (i) The Defendant only owns the instant land located in the rearrangement zone of the housing reconstruction project.