1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B received KRW 1,178,00,000 from the Plaintiff at the same time, and at the same time, attached Table 1, 2, 3.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. 1) The Plaintiff is a real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “each real estate of this case”) and, when individually named, “real estate of this case 1 to 13” according to the sequence thereof.

(B) The Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) for the purpose of implementing housing reconstruction projects for H 30,900 square meters in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, including B.

(2) The Defendants are the owners of each Defendant’s relevant real estate (hereinafter “each relevant real estate of this case”) indicated in the separate sheet located in the Plaintiff’s rearrangement zone. The Defendants are the owners of each Defendant’s own real estate (hereinafter “each relevant real estate of this case”) as indicated in the separate sheet located in the Plaintiff’s rearrangement zone, with the authorization of establishment from the head of Dongjak-gu on November 25, 2013 and completed the registration of establishment on November 26, 2013.

3) On May 26, 2014, the Plaintiff urged Defendant C, D, E, and F to participate in each re-building on May 17, 2014, and notified Defendant B in writing as to whether they participated in each re-building. If the Defendants did not reply within two months, Article 39 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings”).

(4) The Plaintiff sent the above written peremptory notice to Defendant G on May 27, 2014 and July 3, 2014, on the following grounds: (a) deeming that the Plaintiff did not participate in the rebuilding pursuant to Article 48, and thus, expressed his/her intent to exercise the right to claim the sale of each of the instant real estate; and (b) each of the said written peremptory notice reached the Defendants around that time; (c) however, the said Defendants did not reply within the said period; (d) on the other hand, the Plaintiff sent the said written peremptory notice to Defendant G, but

5 The Plaintiff, through the service of the duplicate of the instant complaint, urged the Defendants to re-examine whether they participate in re-building, and expressed their intent to exercise the right to demand sale. The duplicate of the instant complaint to Defendant G on September 23, 2014, and Defendant B, C, D, and E on October 28, 2014.