2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. On July 3, 2008, the Mayor of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City publicly notified on July 3, 2008, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor publicly announced the F 39,497 square meters as D Housing Reconstruction Improvement Zone. Accordingly, the D Housing Reconstruction Improvement Project Establishment Promotion Committee demands from 231 persons among 276 land or building owners within the rearrangement zone prior to the extension of the extension, and completed the establishment authorization of the defendant on February 24, 2009 with the approval of the establishment from the head of Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, and completed the establishment registration on March 3, 2009.

B. On October 28, 2010, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City: (a) designated and publicly announced as D Housing Reconstruction Improvement Zone (hereinafter “instant project zone”); (b) a reconstruction project, the project district of which is located in the instant project zone, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant reconstruction project”); and (c) accordingly, the Defendant collected consent from 313 owners of land or buildings in the instant project zone expanded, among 383 owners; (d) on November 20, 2010, the amendment of the association’s articles of association following the amendment of the rearrangement zone, etc. at the special meeting of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, “the modification of the association’s articles of association” following the amendment of the rearrangement zone, “the outline of the design of the constructed building, and the outline of expenses required for the removal and new construction of the buildings,” and (e) obtained authorization for the establishment of the association from the head of Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City on December 17, 2010.

C. The plaintiffs share 36.91/215.46 shares among the co-owners of HJ in Gwangjin-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (the second floor tenement house; hereinafter "the instant house"), and six co-owners, including the plaintiffs, share 36.91/215.46 shares.

However, even though the plaintiffs were co-owners, who are not sole owners of the housing of this case, they did not appoint one representative partner and submit to the defendant a written consent for the appointment of the representative partner and a written consent for the establishment of the association.

The Defendant, including the Plaintiffs.