1. The intervenor accepting the defendant J and the remaining Defendants except the defendant J are set forth in the annexed Table 1 from the plaintiff.

1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties or may be recognized by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence of 1 to 10 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply).

On February 10, 2011, pursuant to Article 4 (4) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012; hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), the Mayor of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government designated and publicly announced a size of 20,568.10 square meters (hereinafter “instant improvement zone”) as a A-building improvement zone.

(Y) Seoul Special Metropolitan City Notice Y).

The Plaintiff obtained authorization to establish an association from the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on November 2, 201 for the reconstruction of the instant rearrangement zone, and completed the registration of incorporation under the Urban Improvement Act on November 4, 201.

As shown in the attached Table 2, DefendantB owned only land in the rearrangement zone of this case and consented to the establishment of the above association. The remaining Defendants owned land and buildings in the rearrangement zone of this case as shown in the attached Table 2, but did not consent to the establishment of the above association.

C. On December 20, 201, the Plaintiff sent a peremptory notice to ask the remaining Defendants, other than Defendant B, whether they agree to establish an association to promote reconstruction projects, and the said Defendants did not respond within two months from the arrival date of the peremptory notice.

Meanwhile, the real estate owned by Defendant J (attached Form 2 No. 14) was sold at a voluntary auction on August 18, 2014 while the instant lawsuit is pending, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of Defendant J K (hereinafter, the acquiring intervenor).

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the facts of recognition of the transfer of ownership and the obligation to deliver in accordance with the Plaintiff’s claim for sale, Defendant B is a person who owns only land in the instant improvement zone and is subject to Article 2 subparag. 9 and Article 19(1) of the Urban Improvement Act.