1. The Defendants shall receive KRW 95,850,000 from the Plaintiff simultaneously with the payment of KRW 95,850,000 from the Plaintiff:

(a) the annexed list;

1. Basic facts

A. On December 21, 2007, the Plaintiff obtained authorization from the head of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to establish an association for a reconstruction project of the size of 52,476 square meters in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government pursuant to the provisions related to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”). The Plaintiff obtained authorization for the implementation of the project on December 12, 2008, and authorization for the implementation of the project on April 16, 2013, respectively.

B. The Defendants agreed to the establishment of the Plaintiff Union as a person who owns 1/2 shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet in the said rearrangement project zone (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

On the other hand, the registration of the establishment of the neighboring real estate in Seoul Northern District Court was completed on January 27, 201 by the receipt No. 5370 on January 27, 201.

C. The Plaintiff received an application for parcelling-out from May 30, 2013 to July 28, 2013, and extended the period of application for parcelling-out (hereinafter “first application for parcelling-out”) from August 11, 2013, and again received an application for parcelling-out from April 29, 2014 to May 16, 2014 (hereinafter “second application for parcelling-out”).

However, the defendants did not apply for parcelling-out during the period of each of the above applications for parcelling-out.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 8, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff did not apply for parcelling-out and lost the status of the Plaintiff’s member, and the Plaintiff exercised the right to demand sale by applying mutatis mutandis Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act. As such, the Defendants are obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer to the Plaintiff on August 12, 2013 following the date following the completion date of the first application for parcelling-out, and (preliminaryly), on May 17, 2014, the date following the completion date of the second application for parcelling-out, and are obliged to deliver the instant real estate.

B. The Defendants’ assertion that the Defendants lost their membership shall apply for the second application for parcelling-out, which is when they could have maintained their membership status.