1. The acquisition intervenor of the remaining Defendants except Defendant F Co., Ltd. and Defendant F Co., Ltd. is from the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction association established pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) for the purpose of implementing a housing reconstruction project on the 30,900 square meters of Ma-man, Dongjak-gu, Seoul, including each real estate listed in the list of real estate in attached Table 1 (hereinafter “each real estate in this case”). On November 25, 2013, the Plaintiff was authorized to establish an association on November 26, 2013 by obtaining authorization from the head of Dongjak-gu and obtained authorization for the establishment from the head of the Gu on July 14, 2014.

B. The remaining Defendants except Defendant F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant F”) and the Intervenor taking over the Defendant F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant taking over Intervenor”) are the owners of the pertinent real estate by each Defendant indicated in the “object of Sale” column in the attached Table 2 list located within the Plaintiff’s rearrangement zone (hereinafter “each pertinent real estate”). Defendant F was the owner of the pertinent real estate in the instant case 22 and 23.

C. On May 26, 2014, the Plaintiff sent a written notice to Defendant B, C, D, E, G, and I, and Defendant F, H, J, J, and K on May 27, 2014. If the Defendants did not reply within two months, they deemed that they did not participate in reconstruction pursuant to Article 39 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Article 48 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings”), and expressed their intent to exercise the right to demand sale of each of the instant real estate. Each of the said peremptory notices reached the Defendants around that time, but the Defendants did not reply within the said period.

The Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to exercise the right to demand sale against the Defendants by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint. The duplicate of the instant complaint to Defendant K on September 23, 2014, and Defendant B, C, E, F, G, H, September 24, 2014.