1. The Defendant received KRW 184,100,000 from the Plaintiff simultaneously with the Plaintiff’s payment:

(a) the annexed list;

1. Basic facts

A. On October 8, 2008, pursuant to Article 16 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), the Plaintiff obtained authorization from the head of Seodaemun-gu, and completed the establishment registration on November 6, 2008. On January 26, 2012, the Plaintiff obtained authorization from the head of Seodaemun-gu, Seoul Seo-gu, Seoul, as a project implementation district for the improvement of Seodaemun-gu, and on March 23, 2012, determined the expiration date of the application for parcelling-out and announced the application for parcelling-out on May 17, 2012.

B. The Defendant, as the owner of the real estate in the attached list within the rearrangement project implementation district (hereinafter “instant real estate”), agreed to the rebuilding resolution for the establishment of the Plaintiff’s association, and did not apply for parcelling-out by the expiration date of the application period for parcelling-out.

C. As of May 18, 2012, the market value of the instant real estate is KRW 184,100,000.

On the other hand, with respect to the real estate of this case, the Seoul Western District Court's Seodaemun Registry No. 18534 received on May 10, 2007 and the Seodaemun District Court's Seodaemun District Court's Seodaemun Registry No. 42832 received on October 18, 2007 (hereinafter "the provisional seizure decision entry registration of this case") has been completed respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including provisional number), the result of a request for appraisal of the market price of appraiser D by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant did not file an application for parcelling-out by the expiration date of the period for application for parcelling-out and became a person subject to cash liquidation. Thus, the plaintiff exercises the right to claim a sale under Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act by serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case against the defendant. The defendant's claim from the plaintiff as liquidation amount of KRW 184,10,000 less the amount equivalent to the defendant's share out of the maintenance project cost incurred during the period in which the defendant was holding the status of union members.