1. The Defendants fall under the “recognized Amount” column of the attached Table 3 detailed performance sheet from the Plaintiff, respectively.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a cooperative established to implement a housing reconstruction project (hereinafter “instant project”) within the area of 65148 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul, Mapo-gu, Seoul. The Defendants owned each real estate located within the instant project area as shown in the attached Table 2.

B. An association establishment authorization and an authorization for modification are originally granted on May 29, 2003 with a business area of the H 48775 square meters wide as the Plaintiff’s business area:

7. The registration of the establishment was completed on August 30, 201, but the instant project zone expanded on August 19, 2010 was designated and publicly announced as a housing reconstruction improvement zone, and the owners of land, etc. in a new project zone [the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”)].

(B) With the consent of 75% or more of the owners of land, etc. under Article 2 subparagraph 9 (b) (hereinafter the same shall apply), the authorization for the establishment of the association was obtained on June 26, 2012 (hereinafter the “authorization for the establishment of the association of this case”);

6. 29. Registration of modification shall be completed.

C. On October 5, 2012, the Plaintiff sent a written peremptory notice to the Defendants to the effect that “if the Defendants agree to the change of the establishment of the association within two months from the date of receipt of the written peremptory notice, and if it is deemed that they did not consent to the change of the establishment of the association or they did not reply within two months, they will exercise their right to demand sale under Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act.”

On December 21, 2012, when filing the instant lawsuit against the Defendants, the pertinent complaint stated that “a right to demand sale as prescribed by Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act is exercised.” On January 3, 2013, a copy of the complaint attached to the above peremptory notice was sent to the Defendants. The remaining Defendants except Defendant D received it on each corresponding date indicated in the column.