1. Defendant B shall receive KRW 124,00,000 from the Plaintiff and at the same time obtain from the Plaintiff, real estate listed in paragraph 1 of the attached Table.

. A separate resolution (hereinafter “instant separate resolution”) is submitted.

The separate resolution of this case indicates the contents of the modified remodeling project, and states the cost sharing details of the association members as follows:

The sectional owners who submitted the separate resolution of this case are about 65% of all sectional owners.

(1) The association shall impose and collect the expenses required for the project in accordance with the association rules, make a provisional settlement at the time of the determination of the contributions, and fix the settlement money at the time of the liquidation of the association.

(2) calculate the value of assets owned by its members as prescribed by the union rules and the alteration of rights (determined contributions), and bear expenses at the rate as determined by the Assembly.

(3) Estimated amounts of contributions by house owned by each association member as shown in the example of methods for estimating contributions by house owned by each association member = The estimated amount of contributions by house held by each association member after remodeling - [The assessed price of previous house owned by each association member x allocation rate*] distribution rate* (the total estimated price of house after completion of the project - the total appraised price of previous house) / The total appraised price of previous house

C. The Defendants did not submit the instant written consent to the Plaintiff. On April 6, 2017, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendants to clarify their consent to the instant remodeling project by content-certified mail, and the Plaintiff sent a peremptory notice to the effect that, in the event that the Defendants’ submission of a dissenting opinion on the remodeling project or delayed the response to the highest demand, the Defendants would proceed with legal procedures, such as requesting for sale (hereinafter “instant peremptory notice”).

(2) The Defendants did not answer the instant peremptory notice. The Defendants did not answer the instant peremptory notice.

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendants on August 4, 2017, pursuant to Article 22(2) and (3) of the Housing Act and Article 48 of the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings (hereinafter “the Aggregate Buildings Act”).