1. Of the lawsuit of this case by the plaintiffs, it is confirmed that there is no obligation listed in the [Attachment 1] No. 2 of the cost table related to the old-do lawsuit.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant’s status, etc. 1) The Act on the Maintenance of Urban and Residential Environments (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the Plaintiff is a member of the Defendant’s association with each share of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 through 3 (hereinafter “No. 1 land, No. 2 building, and No. 3 land”) located within the said rearrangement project zone, as indicated in the separate sheet 2. The Plaintiff is a member of the Plaintiff, who owns each portion of the real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 through 3 (hereinafter “No. 1 land,” “No. 2 building, and “No. 3 land”).

3) On July 30, 2010, the Plaintiffs leased the building No. 2 and the land No. 3 to D. (B) On December 8, 2011, the Defendant held a general meeting of partners for the establishment of a management and disposal plan on December 8, 2011; however, at the above general meeting, the Plaintiffs proposed the “case of processing the cost-bearing related to the lusing lawsuit,” thereby making a resolution with the consent of a majority of partners.

(2) At the time of the resolution of the general meeting of this case, the reason for the proposal referred to at the general meeting of this case is anticipated to proceed with the procedure of surrendering due to the failure to move while moving. In this case, in principle, any member who neglects his/her duty to move and remove in accordance with Article 10 shall bear the expenses incurred in a lawsuit arising from his/her failure to move and remove in accordance with the articles of association, and in cases of the liquidation, he/she shall deduct it at the time of payment of moving expenses in the future, and shall entrust the board of directors with the research and processing of measures to reduce the losses of the members. (3) On May 28, 2013, the defendant decided on the criteria for bearing the expenses related to the suit by the resolution of the general meeting of this case, and the criteria for bearing the expenses related to the borrowed party lawsuit

3. The description; and

C. On December 31, 2012, the Defendant, such as the notice of approval for the management and disposal plan, an explanation suit, and a claim for expenses.