1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Article 7,721,817,00 won is paid from the Plaintiff, and at the same time, Section 1 of the attached Table is written.

1. Basic facts

A. Under the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “former Act”), the Plaintiff obtained authorization for the establishment of a housing reconstruction project (hereinafter “instant reconstruction project”) on June 5, 2012 for the purpose of implementing a housing reconstruction project (hereinafter “instant reconstruction project”) in the Daegu-gu Seoul-gu Seoul-gu Seoul-gu Seoul-gu Seoul-gu Seoul-gu Seoul-gu Seoul-gu Seoul-gu Seoul-gu Seoul-gu Seoul-gu Seoul-gu Seoul-gu Seoul-do (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”) and completed the establishment registration on June 26, 2012. The Plaintiff obtained a consent for the alteration of partnership establishment and the consent for the project plan from the general meeting of cooperatives held on December 2, 2017 after obtaining written consent for the alteration of association establishment from the owners of land, etc. (hereinafter “instant authorization for the alteration”).

B. The Defendant is the owner who owns each real estate listed in the separate sheet in the instant rearrangement zone (hereinafter referred to as “second real estate”) and owns each real estate listed in the separate sheet in the instant rearrangement zone (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant real estate”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 through 3, 7 through 9 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. 1) The establishment of a sales contract is established when a housing reconstruction project implementer under the former Act exercises a right to demand sale against a person who owns only the land under Article 39 subparag. 2 of the same Act, and at the same time a declaration of intent to exercise the right to demand sale is reached (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da41698, Dec. 11, 2014). 2) The fact that the Defendant is the owner who owns only the land in the instant rearrangement zone is recognized as above, and the fact that the Plaintiff, who is the implementer of the housing reconstruction project, exercises the right to demand sale against the Defendant through the delivery of a duplicate of the complaint in this case is apparent in the record.

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff and the defendant.