1. Defendant B received KRW 42,045,700 from the Plaintiff, and at the same time, was included in the real estate indicated in the attached Table to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction project partnership that completed the establishment registration on October 29, 2012 after obtaining authorization for the establishment from the head of the Busan Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant authorization disposition”) on October 19, 2012 in order to implement a housing reconstruction project with the area of 51,009 square meters in Busan Dong-gu as a rearrangement zone (hereinafter “instant project”). The Defendants, the couple of which, as co-owners, did not consent to the establishment of the association as co-owners of the real estate in the attached list in the project implementation district of the instant case (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On November 13, 2012, the Plaintiff: “The Defendant did not consent to the establishment of the Plaintiff Association, and the Plaintiff would make a claim for sale of the instant real estate without reply to whether the Plaintiff consented to the establishment of the Plaintiff Association within two months.The Plaintiff sent a written peremptory notice to the Plaintiff by content-certified mail, but the Defendants did not reply thereto.

C. A duplicate of the complaint of this case, the Plaintiff’s exercise of the right to demand sale against the Defendants, was served on March 19, 2013, and on March 20, 2013, respectively on Defendant B, and on March 20, 2013, and the market price of the instant real estate was KRW 420,457,000 when assessed in accordance with the official land price standard law.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including additional numbers), the result of the appraisal of the market price of appraiser E by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff’s service of the copy of the complaint in this case to the Defendants, which lawfully exercised the right to demand sale under Article 39 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents. Accordingly, the Defendants received the purchase payment from the Plaintiff, and at the same time, made a sale on March 19, 2013 (or March 20, 2013) where the copy of the complaint in this case was served on the Plaintiff.