1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B Religious Organization C church shall receive KRW 62,500,000 from the Plaintiff at the same time.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 20, 2008, the Plaintiff: (a) obtained authorization for the establishment of a reconstruction project association from the head of the Gu/U.S. on August 20, 2008 pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”); and (b) completed the registration of incorporation on September 5, 2008.

B. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is located within the said rearrangement project zone, and Defendant B Religious Organization C church (hereinafter “Defendant church”) owns the real estate No. 1, and the remaining Defendants own 1/5 of each of the real estate No. 2.

[However, the deceased on July 29, 2003, the deceased on the title holder in the registration of the second real estate, and the heir of the deceased on July 29, 2003, there was a net L (the deceased on February 24, 1992) and Defendant H (the deceased on January 22, 2013) as the substitute heir of Defendant D, E, F, G and network K (the deceased on February 24, 1992).

On May 30, 2015, the Plaintiff passed a resolution on May 30, 2015 on the “case of a ruling for reconstruction” with the content that the Plaintiff agreed to modify the rearrangement plan by holding an ordinary general meeting of partners, raising the availability rate and increasing the ratio of small-sized houses, applied for an amendment to establish an association in accordance with the said resolution, and obtained the authorization for the establishment of an association from the old US market on September 7, 201

On July 13, 2015, the Plaintiff sent a written peremptory notice to the representative M of the network J and the Defendant church to the effect that “if it is deemed that the Plaintiff consented to the establishment of the association within two months from the date of receipt of the written peremptory notice, and if it is deemed that the Plaintiff did not consent to the establishment of the association or fails to reply within two months, it will exercise the right to demand sale under Article 39 of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions.”

E. In filing the instant lawsuit on October 28, 2015, the Plaintiff stated in the complaint that “the Plaintiff shall exercise the right to demand sale as prescribed by Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act” and also stated in the complaint.

(b) such as paragraph (3).