1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant C, as stated in Section 1 of the attached Table, and Defendant C, as stated in Section 3 of the attached Table.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association established under the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) to implement an urban environment rearrangement project in the area of approximately 63,231 square meters of land for each building listed in the separate sheet, including the site for each building listed in the separate sheet. The Plaintiff was granted authorization to establish the association on December 30, 2008 by the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the authorization to implement the project on September 26, 2013, the authorization to implement the project on September 26, 2013, and the authorization to implement the management and disposal plan on May 7,

B. Within the above business zone, the Defendants are the buildings listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1, and the Defendants C possess the buildings listed in paragraph (3) of the same list, and the buildings listed in paragraph (4) of the attached Table No. 4 by Defendant D, E, F, G, H, I, and J respectively, and are eligible for cash liquidation who did not apply for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out by the Plaintiff.

C. On July 24, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendants for a ruling of acceptance, which did not reach an agreement on cash settlement with the said Defendants. On September 11, 2015, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Expropriation Committee rendered a ruling of acceptance with respect to the Defendants on the date of commencement of expropriation.

Defendant D, E, F, G, H, I, and J received compensation from the Plaintiff on August 27, 2015.

On September 8, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited the full amount of compensation determined by the acceptance ruling in Defendant B and C.

Meanwhile, on November 3, 2015, the Plaintiff calculated the resettlement subsidy for Defendant B, C, and D, the cost of moving a house, and the cost of moving a movable property. On the other hand, on November 3, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 15,763,686 to Defendant D: KRW 15,763,68; KRW 5,340; KRW 5,370; KRW 816,419; KRW 22,074,749; KRW 22,74,749; KRW 22,000; KRW 8,768,478; KRW 1,306, KRW 271; KRW 3050; KRW 16,496, KRW 4985; KRW 165,485; KRW 165,565; KRW 4856,495; KRW 297; KRW 9756,5755,4965; KRW 1975,565.25

【Ground of recognition】 dispute.