1. The defendant shall receive KRW 1,399,208,230 from the plaintiff, and at the same time, shall be stated in the attached list of real estate.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including each number, if any).

1) The head of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”) on September 2, 2010, the real estate indicated in the separate sheet of real estate (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”).

(C) Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 176,590 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant improvement zone”).

(2) The Plaintiff was established pursuant to Article 16(2) and (3) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 11580, Dec. 18, 2012; hereinafter “former Act”). On May 10, 2012, the Plaintiff obtained authorization from the head of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as a housing reconstruction and improvement project association for promoting the housing reconstruction improvement project in the instant rearrangement zone, and completed the establishment registration on May 14, 2012.

B. Nonparty D’s non-party D’s consent to the establishment of the Plaintiff was the owner of the instant real estate, and did not express his/her consent to the establishment of the Plaintiff.

C. On July 5, 2012, the Plaintiff sent and served a written peremptory notice to D (i.e., the Plaintiff’s sending and delivery of written peremptory notice to D) is deemed to be the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings and Article 39 of the former Act and the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings

(3) The Plaintiff’s association’s establishment consent letter is deemed to be “written peremptory notice” (hereinafter “instant peremptory notice”) stating the purport that the Plaintiff’s association’s establishment consent letter is requested to reply within two months from the date of receipt of the written peremptory notice to the Plaintiff’s association pursuant to Article 48.

(2) D received the instant written peremptory notice on July 6, 2012, but did not reply within two months thereafter to the consent to the establishment of the Plaintiff Union.

On November 2, 2012, the Plaintiff is within the rearrangement zone of this case, including D, etc.