1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall:

A. 41.91/1,345.1/1,00 of each land listed in the separate sheet to Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) B.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. 1) The Plaintiff: (a) the process leading up to the instant reconstruction project; (b) the Seoul Seodaemun-gu Seoul Western-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 1,322 square meters and G large 45 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

(A) remove the housing unit A and remove the apartment on the ground (16 units of the housing unit sold by the partner, 18 units of the general housing unit; hereinafter referred to as the “H apartment of this case”).

(1) the reconstruction project (hereinafter referred to as “the reconstruction project”) is the reconstruction project of this case

In order to implement the project, the Plaintiff is an association authorized on July 27, 200 pursuant to the former Housing Construction Promotion Act. 2) The Plaintiff would jointly implement the instant reconstruction project with I and filed a commencement report on March 9, 2002. However, on March 15, 2005, the joint project undertakers were changed into K Co., Ltd. (L) on March 15, 2005 through J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “L”).

3) On May 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a rebuilding share agreement stating that “the Plaintiff shall provide the instant land owned by its members, and provide 16 households out of 34 households of newly built apartment units to its members, and the rest of 18 households of the apartment units shall be sold in general L to meet the housing reconstruction project and the construction cost and the project expenses.” (hereinafter “instant rebuilding share agreement”).

L) From September 2005, L commenced the instant apartment construction project and completed it on or around May 2007, but did not adjust the debt incurred from the reconstruction project, such as unpaid construction cost.

5 As to the whole H apartment 34 households of this case, registration of preservation of ownership was made ex officio due to the exercise of interested parties' rights from the end of 2007 to the end of 2008, and two construction companies such as the Plaintiff and L, etc. as co-owners were completed with respect to the share of the association members and the share of the general sale. However, registration of ownership was not made.

B. Defendant B’s instant case