1. With respect to Daegu-gu, Dong-gu, Daegu-gu, 38.7 square meters:

A. Defendant B is paid KRW 3,860,320 by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. As prescribed by the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), the Plaintiff removed existing buildings on the ground of 29,571 square meters (the alteration to the 28,333.6 square meters on June 22, 2009) outside Daegu Dong-gu, Daegu-gu, and 231 square meters (the alteration to the 29,571 square meters on the 28,333.6 square meters on the 209), and was established for the purpose of constructing a new building on the 23th of August 2007, and was approved by the head of Daegu-gu head of the Gu on August 23, 2007. The Defendants did not join the Plaintiff’s association

B. On January 23, 2014, the Plaintiff urged at least 75% of the owners of land or buildings to submit a written consent to change the establishment of the association, and passed a resolution on the re-building decision and ratification of the consent to re-building decision related to the authorization to establish the association at the ordinary meeting. On April 2, 2014, the Plaintiff was subject to the approval of change from the head of Daegu-gu Dong.

(c) as shown in the separate list of the relevant statutes;

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff obtained consent of 76.3% of the owners of land, etc. and 77.93% of the area of land, and obtained a disposition to approve the establishment of an association on April 2, 2014 in accordance with the rebuilding approval resolution at an ordinary general meeting on January 23, 2014. The said disposition to approve the establishment of an association should be deemed to have obtained new authorization

After the disposition to approve the establishment of an association, the Plaintiff urged the Defendants to respond to whether they agree to the establishment of an association in accordance with Article 39 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings and Article 48 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “Aggregate Buildings Act”), and at the same time, did not respond to whether they agree to the establishment of an association within two months from the date of receipt of the above notice.