1. The Defendant received KRW 934,454,200 from the Plaintiff simultaneously with the Plaintiff’s payment:

(a) Appendix 1 sets out in the Schedule;

1. Basic facts

A. On February 24, 2011, the Plaintiff is entitled to the instant business area (hereinafter “instant business area”) of the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daegu C, 79,701 square meters (hereinafter “instant business area”).

In order to improve the re-building project, the head of Daegu Seo-gu Office obtained authorization for establishment from the head of the Gu, and on July 13, 2016, changed the authorized matters and changed authorization (hereinafter “instant authorization for modification”).

(2) The Defendant, as the owner of each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) located in the instant project zone, was the Plaintiff’s member who consented to the modification of the authorized matters at the time of the instant modification as the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and No. 2, and the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and No. 3 (hereinafter “instant building”).

Each real estate of this case has completed the registration of restriction on rights listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter "registration of restriction on rights of this case").

B. On June 20, 2017, the Plaintiff obtained authorization to implement the instant project on the implementation of the reconstruction project, and issued a public announcement of the parcelling-out application period from August 3, 2017 to September 3, 2017, and extended the period for application for parcelling-out to September 17, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 7 evidence (including additional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of obligation to transfer and deliver ownership of each of the instant real estate;

A. The reconstruction association, which is a project implementer under the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 12116, Dec. 24, 2013; hereinafter “former Act”), does not, in principle, recognize the right to expropriate real estate in the rearrangement zone, and the project implementer’s right to demand sale under Article 39 of the same Act is not a member in principle.