1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B received KRW 234,216,40 from the Plaintiff, and simultaneously entered in the separate sheet No. 1.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 19, 2008, the Plaintiff is an association authorized by the head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to implement a housing reconstruction improvement project (hereinafter “instant improvement project”) with the area where the size of the area is 24,240.4 square meters in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

B. Defendant B is the owner of each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “real estate No. 1”); Defendant C is the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2; Defendant D is the owner of each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as “third real estate”); and each of the above real estate is located within the instant rearrangement project zone.

C. On October 17, 2013, the Plaintiff obtained authorization for the implementation of the project from the head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and received an application for parcelling-out from the members from November 22, 2013 to January 29, 2014, but the Defendants did not apply for parcelling-out.

On February 21, 2013, the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (165,600,000 won, the maximum debt amount; hereinafter “the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage”) No. 14213, which was received on February 21, 2013, the Seoul Northern District Court (Seoul Northern District Court), was completed on March 8, 2012, the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (the National Bank of Korea, the National Bank of Korea, the maximum debt amount, KRW 60,000,000,000,000) on March 8, 2012, the third real estate was completed respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers for those with a serial number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the facts of recognition of the establishment of a sales contract, the defendants were originally members of the maintenance project of this case, but they did not apply for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out, thereby losing their status as members and becoming members of the association under Article 47 of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents.

With respect to those subject to cash settlement.