1. Defendant B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, Defendant (Appointed Party) N, and Defendant M’s acceptance Intervenor Co., Ltd.

In fact, on December 24, 2009, the Mayor of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City established the Plaintiff and the head of the authorizing office publicly announced the designation of the rearrangement zone and the formulation of the rearrangement plan with respect to approximately 23,260 square meters (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”).

There is no housing complex in the rearrangement zone of this case.

The Plaintiff was established pursuant to Article 16 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (Amended by Act No. 12640, May 21, 2014; hereinafter “former Act”). On February 11, 2014, the Plaintiff obtained authorization for the establishment of a housing reconstruction and improvement project association to implement a housing reconstruction project in the instant rearrangement zone from the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “the head of Eunpyeong-gu”) and completed the registration of incorporation on February 19, 2014.

Defendants and Defendant (Appointed Party) N, and Defendant C, Defendant (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Defendant”)’s position as the Intervenor Co., Ltd. taking over of Defendant M, and each of the real estate located within the instant rearrangement zone, as indicated in the corresponding corresponding part of the “Attachment 3” column, as indicated in the respective corresponding part of the “Real Estate (Attachment 2 List)”.

Defendant D owns each real estate listed in attached Forms 5-A and 5-B in attached Table 2, located in the rearrangement zone of this case.

Pursuant to the deceased on March 30, 1960 by the deceased on March 30, 1960, among each real estate listed in [Attachment 2] List Nos. 6 and 7, Defendant D’s 3/7 shares, Defendant E’s 2/7 shares, Defendant F’s 1/7 shares, and net V(Defendant D, E, and F’s mother) shares, respectively.

Since September 21, 1998, the net V died, and Defendant D, E, and F received each share of 1/21 of the respective real estate listed in [Attachment 2] Nos. 6 and 7.

As a result, among each real estate listed in attached Tables 6 and 7 located in the rearrangement zone of this case, Defendant D, each of 10/21 shares, Defendant E, each of 7/21 shares, and Defendant F, each of 4/21 shares.