1. Defendant J District Housing Redevelopment and Rearrangement Project Association:

A. At the same time, the Plaintiff received KRW 142,375,105 from the Plaintiff A.

Based on the facts, the Plaintiffs are the owners of the land and its ground buildings listed in the list of land subject to expropriation in attached Table 3 (the respective land listed in attached Table 2 among them is referred to as “instant land”).

On July 13, 2006, pursuant to Article 4 of the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), the Mayor of Seoul Metropolitan Government designated and publicly announced a housing redevelopment project with a total of 64,357 square meters of land of Lwon, including Mapo-gu Seoul land, as an improvement zone to implement a housing redevelopment project. On June 21, 2007, the Mayor of Mapo-gu designated and publicly announced a total of 64,452.96 square meters (hereinafter “instant improvement zone”) of land size of Lwon, including the Seoul Mapo-gu land, as an improvement zone to implement a housing redevelopment project (hereinafter “instant improvement zone”).

Each land and building owned by the plaintiffs were incorporated into the rearrangement zone in this case in accordance with the above designation.

On November 29, 2006, when the project of this case was implemented, the committee of the housing redevelopment project of this case was authorized to establish the association by the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “head of Mapo-gu”) on November 29, 2006.

On the ground that some members failed to meet the consent rate, etc., they filed a lawsuit seeking nullification of the disposition to authorize the establishment of a partnership, and the Seoul Administrative Court rendered a dismissal judgment on the ground that there is no legal interest in the lawsuit (2009Guhap46146), but the Seoul High Court rendered a judgment to confirm that the disposition to authorize the establishment of a partnership is null and void on the ground that the defect failing to meet the consent rate on June 30, 201 is serious (2010Nu27761), and the above judgment was dismissed and finalized on December 27, 2012.

(Supreme Court Decision 201Du19680). An organization similar to a housing redevelopment project association (representative M; hereinafter “first association similar organization”) established by authorization to establish a housing redevelopment project association dated November 29, 2006, is the instant case on May 23, 2007.