1. Attached Form;

3. The Defendants’ “i.e., Defendant” on the cited list shall be the same Table from the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. 1) The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s position as the parties concerned. The Plaintiff is the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government 176,590 square meters (hereinafter “instant improvement zone”).

(2) in the reconstruction project (hereinafter “instant reconstruction project”)

The Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the “Urban Improvement Act”) shall apply to the Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (85.12%) after obtaining written consent from 1,203 owners of land, etc. to establish the association (85.12%).

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment of an association by misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment of an association under Article 10 of the Civil Act. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment of an association by misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment of an association under Article 10 of the Civil Act.

2. Each owner of each real estate listed in the “object of Sale” column of the Claim List.

B. On July 5, 2012, the Plaintiff sent a peremptory notice to the Defendants to the effect that the Plaintiff would join the Plaintiff’s association and want to participate in the instant reconstruction project within two months (hereinafter “instant peremptory notice”). (2) Defendant B, C, H, D, I, and F did not receive the said peremptory notice for the reasons as indicated below. The remaining Defendants received the instant peremptory notice to ask the Defendants whether they agreed to establish the association on each date indicated “the delivery date” as indicated in the “service date slip,” but among the Defendants who received the instant peremptory notice, they did not answer two months after receipt of the instant peremptory notice, the remaining Defendants except for the Defendant J (the Plaintiff’s consent to the Plaintiff on July 12, 2012)’s “Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings” as stated in the “Act No. 93, Dec. 11, 2012,” and the said Defendants did not answer to the Defendants’ Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings.

Pursuant to Article 48, attached Form 4.1 owned by the Defendants.