1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant Incorporated Foundation B is paid KRW 1215,170,800 from the Plaintiff, and attached Form 1.

1. Basic facts

A. Under the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “former Act”), the Plaintiff obtained authorization for the establishment of a housing reconstruction project on June 5, 2012 for the purpose of implementing a housing reconstruction project in the Daegu-gu Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City G-gu Ga-gu 52,184 square meters (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”) and completed the establishment registration on June 26, 2012. The Plaintiff obtained authorization for the establishment of a housing reconstruction project and completed the establishment registration on June 26, 2012 at the association general meeting held on December 2, 2017 after undergoing a resolution on the “approval for the alteration of the establishment of a partnership and the consent for the project plan” from the owners of land, etc., and obtained authorization for the establishment change on August 2, 201

B. The Defendants are the persons possessing only the land in the instant rearrangement zone, and specified each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) as the owners of each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant real estate”), and the registration of restriction on rights listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as “registration of restriction on rights”) was completed for the instant real estate.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 3, 7 through 9 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. 1) The establishment of a sales contract is established when a housing reconstruction project implementer under the former Act exercises a right to demand sale against a person who owns only land under Article 39 subparag. 2 of the same Act, and at the same time a declaration of intent to exercise the right to demand sale is reached (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da41698, Dec. 11, 2014). 2) The fact that the Defendants are the owners of only the land in the instant rearrangement zone, as recognized earlier, is the fact that the Defendants are the owners of only the land in the instant rearrangement zone. The Plaintiff, a housing reconstruction project implementer, exercised the right to demand sale against the Defendants by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint.