1. The Defendants received each of the KRW 98,750,000 from the Plaintiff simultaneously with the Plaintiff’s payment:

(a) the annexed list;

1. Basic facts

A. On October 8, 2008, the Plaintiff obtained authorization for establishment from the head of Seodaemun-gu Office pursuant to Article 16 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) and completed the establishment registration on November 6, 2008. On January 26, 2012, the Plaintiff obtained authorization for the implementation of the project for the Seoul Seodaemun-gu Seoul Western District as the project implementation district for the rearrangement of Seodaemun-gu Seoul. On March 23, 2012, the Plaintiff publicly announced the application for parcelling-out on May 17, 2012.

B. The Defendants agreed to re-building resolution regarding the establishment of the Plaintiff’s association as the representative of the above co-ownership relationship pursuant to Article 19(1)1 of the Urban Improvement Act, and applied for parcelling-out by the expiration date, but did not apply for parcelling-out by the expiration date.

C. As of May 18, 2012, the market value of the instant real estate is KRW 197,500,000.

On the other hand, with respect to the instant real estate, the establishment registration of neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) was completed on June 24, 2004 by the Seoul Western District Court Seodaemun-gu Office of Registry of Seodaemun-gu, Seoul District Court No. 24406.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including additional numbers), the result of the appraisal commission of the market price of appraiser E by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion that Defendant B did not file an application for parcelling-out by the expiration date of the period for application for parcelling-out and became eligible for cash liquidation. Thus, the plaintiff exercised the right to demand sale under Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act by serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case against the defendants. The defendants are the liquidation amount from the plaintiff as the liquidation amount of KRW 197,50,000, less the amount equivalent to the defendants' share out of the rearrangement project cost incurred during the period in which Defendant B possessed the status of the plaintiff's partner.