1.(a)

Defendant B received KRW 154,393,000 from the Plaintiff, and at the same time, attached Tables 1 and 2 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction project partnership established to implement housing reconstruction improvement project (hereinafter “instant project”) in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government five large scale 19,768 square meters. The Defendants are owners of each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) located within the instant project zone and the Defendants’ ownership status of each real estate of this case is as listed in the separate sheet No. 3 attached hereto. 2.

B. From Jun. 25, 2013, the Plaintiff sent a written peremptory notice to the Defendants from Jun. 25, 2013, to the effect that, within two months, whether the Plaintiff consented to the establishment of the Plaintiff’s association pursuant to Article 39 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 notice was not served on Defendant B, K, L, and Q, and the remaining Defendants did not reply within two months after receiving the notice.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff exercised the right to claim the sale of the instant complaint against the Defendants other than Defendant B, K, L, and Q by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint, and the duplicate of the instant complaint was served on the said Defendants as indicated below.

In addition, the Plaintiff notified Defendant B, K, L, and Q, who was not served with the above peremptory notice, to determine whether the Plaintiff consented to the establishment of the Plaintiff’s association through the instant complaint, and exercised the right to demand sale, and the said peremptory notice is attached to the instant complaint.

The duplicate of the complaint of this case was served on the above Defendants as indicated in the service details list, and the above Defendants and the following C.

As described in paragraph (1), the transferee of Defendant K who purchased the real estate owned by Defendant K from Defendant K (hereinafter referred to as the “takeover Intervenor”) shall reply by the date of the closing of the argument in this case for the last two months.