1. No. 1. The defendants shall do so to the plaintiff with each corresponding amount stated in the separate sheet.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Vlux 1,360.10 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) were owned by W and Defendants, etc. The Plaintiff was owned by W and Defendants, etc., and the Plaintiff was owned by W and the Defendants, etc., upon receiving the registration of ownership transfer as to the portion of 83.17/1,360.1, which was owned by W on June 22, 2007.

B. On the instant land and the instant land of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government X large 90 square meters, there exist the commercial buildings of the first underground floor and the third floor above ground (which was newly constructed before the enforcement of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings; hereinafter “instant building”). The Defendants, among them, divided ownership, such as the “1. club” and “2 building area” in the attached Table.

The Plaintiff acquired the instant land by auction, but did not have sectional ownership over the instant building.

In the reply of September 27, 2013, Defendant S: “The instant commercial building was extended to 2nd floor on January 20, 1978 after the approval for use was made on October 29, 1977; again, on October 31, 1982, the commercial building was extended to 18.18 square meters on October 31, 1982, 3,80.9 square meters on a rooftop tower, 79.67 square meters on a 38-year basis; the separate stores of this case acquired only the exclusive ownership of the divided stores, did not purchase the relevant site shares, acquired a large number of site shares in comparison with the ratio of the area of the exclusive ownership of the divided stores, or acquired a less share in the same (the ownership and management of an aggregate building could have been separated from the relevant site shares, due to the circumstances far prior to the enforcement of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings).” In full view of the evidence presented in this case’s argument to the purport that the aforementioned assertion was consistent with the present evidence.

C. Of the instant land, the assessment of rent for the part on which the instant building exists (if there is no restriction due to the instant building), is relevant.