1. The Defendant’s KRW 3,802,40, and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from July 6, 2005 to July 10, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a reconstruction improvement project association established for the purpose of implementing the reconstruction project of Suwon-si C (the administrative district was changed to Young-gu) and six parcels above ground B apartments (hereinafter “the reconstruction project of this case”).

B. In accordance with the inaugural general meeting and rebuilding resolution of June 30, 2001, the Defendant obtained authorization for the establishment of 2,073 members who agree to the reconstruction among the sectional owners of the above B apartment (the consent rate of 81.89%) under the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 6655, Feb. 4, 2002; the Act was amended as the Housing Act No. 6916, May 29, 2003; the same shall apply hereinafter) from the Suwon mayor on May 16, 2002. After the above inaugural general meeting, the Defendant obtained authorization for the establishment of 2,073 members who agreed to the reconstruction from the sectional owners of the above B apartment, with the consent of the reconstruction resolution from the owners of the above B apartment, increased the number of members to 2,083, and the number of members under the former Housing Construction Promotion Act was increased to 2,594 and the Act No. 315, Aug. 31, 2019, 2004.

C. E owns the real estate listed in the attached list among the above B apartments (hereinafter “instant apartment”). On December 10, 2002, E donated 1/10 of the instant apartment to the Plaintiff on December 10, 2002, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the said apartment on December 11, 2002.

The Plaintiff and E, a co-owner of the instant apartment, filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking confirmation of the existence of a partner's abandonment, etc., and filed a lawsuit with the Seoul High Court on January 21, 2015, and the Plaintiff and E were the members of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff and E did not apply for parcelling-out by February 28, 2005, the period for application for parcelling-out notified and notified by the Defendant, pursuant to Article 47 of the Urban Improvement Act.