1. As to the real estate stated in the attached list to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is based on sale on October 20, 2014.

1. Indication of claim;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction project partnership under the former Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments (amended by Act No. 12116, Dec. 24, 2013; hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), which completed the registration of incorporation on May 8, 2013 with the approval of establishment on May 2, 2013, for the purpose of promoting a multi-family housing reconstruction project by using the land of 56,678.104 square meters in the project site as a project site. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction project partnership under the former Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Residential Environments (amended by Act No. 12116, Dec. 24, 2013; hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”). The Defendant is a person who owns real estate in the Plaintiff’s project site

B. On April 17, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of his/her reply to the establishment of the association, and if there is no written reply within two months from the date of receipt, the Plaintiff sent a written peremptory notice to the Defendant that he/she will claim the sale of the instant land pursuant to Article 39 of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents and Article 48 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings”). However, the Defendant did not make any reply thereto. On August 8, 2014, the Plaintiff received the instant written complaint to the Defendant, stating his/her intention to claim the sale of the instant real estate, and the duplicate of the instant complaint was served on the Defendant on October 20, 2014.

C. The Defendant did not reply within two months after being urged the Plaintiff to reply to the establishment of the association, and thus, it appears that the Plaintiff did not consent to the establishment of the association pursuant to Article 48(3) of the Aggregate Buildings Act. Thus, the sales contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the date when a duplicate of the complaint of this case exercising the Plaintiff’s right to demand sale pursuant to Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act and Article 48 of the Aggregate Buildings Act reaches the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to the plaintiff for the pertinent real estate.