1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B, C, D, E, F, I, and J are described in the “sale price” list from the Plaintiff (attached Form 1).

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and maintenance project partnership under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) that completed the establishment registration on March 16, 2015 with the approval from the head of Seocho-gu Office of the Republic of Seocho-gu, Seoul for the establishment of a housing reconstruction project (hereinafter “instant reconstruction project”) in order to promote the housing reconstruction project in the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government KK, and the Defendants are owners of each relevant land indicated in the column of real estate “attached Form 2” within the instant reconstruction project zone (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On May 2015, after obtaining authorization to establish the association, the Plaintiff sent a written peremptory notice to the Defendants within two months to confirm whether they consented to the instant reconstruction project, and each of the above written peremptory notice reached the Defendants around that time. However, the Defendants did not reply to the above written peremptory notice within the above period.

C. The Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to exercise the right to demand sale to the Defendants by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint, and the duplicate of the instant complaint was served on each of the Defendants on each date stated in the “the date of formation of the sales contract” list in [Attachment 2].

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including each number, if any) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In a case where a project implementer, who did not participate in a housing reconstruction project, exercises the right to demand sale under the Urban Improvement Act, a sales contract is established based on the market price on the land or building of a person who did not participate in the housing reconstruction project at the same time when the intent to exercise the right to demand sale reaches the declaration of intention to exercise the right to demand sale and at the same time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da21549, 2156, 21563, Mar. 26, 2009). According to the above-mentioned basic facts, Article 39 subparag. 2 and 39 of the former Urban Improvement Act (Amended by Act No. 12738, Jun. 4, 2015; hereinafter “former Urban