1. The Defendants shall receive each of the money stated in the “sale price” column of the attached Table 1 from the Plaintiff at the same time.

1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties or may be recognized by taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply).

The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and rearrangement project association established under 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”) for housing reconstruction and rearrangement projects of 20,568 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”). The Defendants are the owners of each real estate listed in the attached Table 2 list in the instant rearrangement zone and are the Plaintiff’s members.

B. The Plaintiff received an application for parcelling-out from its members from October 7, 2013 to November 6, 2013 after obtaining authorization to establish an association on November 2, 201 from the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and obtaining authorization to implement the project on August 17, 201, following the procedures for notification and public announcement of the period for application for parcelling-out under Article 46(1) of the Urban Improvement Act, but the Defendants did not apply for parcelling-out during the above period.

C. The Plaintiff exercised the Defendants’ right to claim the sale of each real estate of this case by serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the fact that ownership transfer registration and delivery obligations arising from the plaintiff's right to request sale are recognized, the defendants did not apply for sale within the above period of application for parcelling-out, so they constitute a person subject to cash settlement pursuant to Article 47 of the Urban Improvement Act.

Since a person subject to cash settlement has lost the status of a person subject to parcelling-out due to reasons such as not applying for parcelling-out and has an status as a member who is equivalent to an withdrawal of an association, a reconstruction association shall be deemed to be entitled to file a claim for registration of ownership transfer of real estate in a rearrangement zone against a person subject to cash settlement by applying Article 39 of the same Act mutatis mutandis.