1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Defendant ordering the Defendant to deliver the real estate indicated in the separate sheet.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and rearrangement project association established to implement a housing reconstruction and rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant project”) on a scale of 118,069 square meters in Quwon 118,069 square meters, and the Defendant is the owner of the real estate indicated in the attached Table located in the instant project area (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On January 2, 2013, the Plaintiff sent a written peremptory notice to the Defendant on January 2, 2013, to the effect that, within two months, whether the Plaintiff consented to the establishment of the Plaintiff’s association pursuant to Article 39 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) and Article 48 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “Building Act”), the written peremptory notice was sent, but

Accordingly, while filing the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of whether the Plaintiff consented to the establishment of the Plaintiff’s association, and stated the intent to exercise the right to demand sale, and attached a written peremptory notice in writing.

C. On July 4, 2013, the duplicate of the instant complaint was served on the Defendant. The Defendant did not answer whether the Plaintiff consented to the establishment of the Plaintiff Union until two months after being served with the duplicate of the complaint.

[Reasons for Recognition] Nos. 1, 2, 3-21, 4-21, 5, 6-4 and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments, which have no partial dispute or are obvious in the record

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made on September 5, 2013 by exercising the right to demand sale against the Defendant, who did not consent to the establishment of an association pursuant to Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act and Article 48 of the Aggregate Buildings Act.

Therefore, the defendant has the opposing power over the above real estate at the market price of 550,000,000 as of the date of establishment of the contract for the sale of the real estate from the plaintiff.