1. The Defendants shall pay each corresponding money from the Plaintiff as indicated on the “sale Price” list in the attached Table of Sales Contracts.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and improvement project association established to implement a housing reconstruction and rearrangement project of A apartment in the Daegu Suwon-gu E (hereinafter “instant apartment”) pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

The Defendants own each relevant real estate indicated in the column for “the indication of the details of the conclusion of the sales contract” in the attached Table.

(hereinafter referred to as "each of the above real estates in this case" and individually owned by Defendant B shall be "A apartment 109", "A apartment 101", "A apartment 101", and "A apartment 203" as "A apartment 203".

On December 2, 2012, the owners of the instant apartment, opened an inaugural general meeting for the establishment of the Plaintiff Association, elected the head of the association, the auditor, and the partnership’s officers, and agreed to the articles of association of the association. On December 31, 2012, the owners of the instant apartment upon authorization for the establishment from the head of the Gu of Daegu Metropolitan City (hereinafter “the head of the Gu”). The registration of incorporation was completed on January 9, 2013.

C. On January 22, 2013, the Plaintiff sent a peremptory notice to the Defendants to respond to whether they agree to the establishment of the association in relation to the establishment authorization pursuant to Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act and Article 48 of the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings (hereinafter “Aggregate Buildings Act”). On February 4, 2013, the Plaintiff re-issued the said peremptory notice to the Defendants.

The peremptory notice sent by the Plaintiff to Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) was served on January 23, 2013 and February 5, 2013, but was not served on Defendant C and D.

Even though the defendant company was served with each of the above peremptory notices, it did not answer whether it consented to the lapse of two months from the above peremptory notices.

With respect to each real estate of this case, the registration of restriction on rights is listed in the “registration of restriction on rights” in the attached Table.