1. The Defendant received KRW 240,100,000 from the Plaintiff simultaneously with the Plaintiff’s payment:

(a) real estate listed in the annex;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff was a cooperative established on June 28, 2003 in order to remove a Audio house located on the land of 1,302 square meters in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City and to implement a housing reconstruction improvement project (hereinafter “instant project”). The Defendant is a sectional owner who owned the real estate listed in the attached Form among the Audio Housing subject to the implementation of the said project.

B. After that, the Plaintiff obtained authorization for the change of the establishment of an association on more than three occasions on June 11, 2014, September 18, 2014, and February 12, 2015, and obtained re-verification of the consent of at least 15 households among the 18 households, among the total 18 households of A-built houses, through the extraordinary general meeting on September 24, 2015.

C. Nevertheless, on April 27, 2016, the Plaintiff still failed to clearly state whether to consent to the establishment of an association, sent a written peremptory notice to the Defendant stating that “if there is no reply within two months from the date of receipt of the written peremptory notice, the Plaintiff shall reply in writing as to whether to consent to the establishment of the association, and if there is no reply within two months, it shall be deemed that there is no consent to the establishment of the association pursuant to Article 39 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents”) and Article 48 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings”), and the said peremptory notice was served on the Defendant on April 29, 2016, but the Defendant did not reply to the said peremptory notice until

Accordingly, while filing the instant lawsuit on July 1, 2016, the Plaintiff exercised the right to demand sale under Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act and Article 48 of the Multi-Family Building Act by serving a duplicate of the complaint, and the instant warden was served on the Defendant on July 8, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 7 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff and the defendant present this objection.