1. The Plaintiffs’ statement in the column for the share of the rearrangement project cost imposed in the attached Table 1 dated May 14, 2015 against the Defendant each.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 20, 2007, the Mayor of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government designated and publicly announced the 68,230 square meters of Seoul Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as a re-building improvement zone. The defendant obtained approval from the head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the approval of the establishment of the association on September 4, 2008, the approval of the project implementation plan on June 21, 2013, and the approval of the management and disposal plan on January 22, 2015, respectively.

B. The Plaintiffs did not apply for parcelling-out during the period of application for parcelling-out (from August 14, 2013 to October 22, 2013).

C. The Defendant, on May 14, 2015, imposed on the Plaintiffs the improvement project cost charges on the grounds that some of the improvement project costs incurred before the time when the Plaintiffs lost their membership by failing to file an application for parcelling-out, and on May 14, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1, 2, 4 through 6 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The relevant statutes and the articles of incorporation of the defendant are as shown in the attached statutes and the defendant articles of incorporation;

3. Existence of obligations for rearrangement project costs;

A. Article 60(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) provides that “The maintenance project cost shall be borne by the project implementer, except as otherwise provided for in this Act or other Acts and subordinate statutes.” Article 61(1) provides that “The project implementer may impose and collect the difference between the cost under Article 60(1) and the income accrued in the course of implementing the rearrangement project from the owner of land, etc. as surcharges.” Article 61(3) provides that “The matters necessary for the imposition and collection of surcharges and late payment charges under paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be determined by the articles of incorporation, etc.”

Meanwhile, a partner who became subject to cash settlement by failing to apply for parcelling-out or withdrawing an application for parcelling-out falls under the requirements prescribed in Article 47 of the Act on Urban Improvement and the articles of association of an association (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da81203, Aug. 19, 2010).