소유권이전등기
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
The reasons why the court shall explain this case are as follows: the "attached Form 2" of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be read as "attached Form 1" and "attached Form 3" as "attached Form 2", and the defendants shall also be read as the defendants of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments to the allegations added by the court of first instance, so it shall be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The defendant B asserts that the period for exercising the right to sell further determination has been reduced. The defendant B asserts to the effect that the period has been reduced to two months, compared to the fact that the land owner who did not agree with the rebuilding resolution could decide whether to participate in the rebuilding for 4 months in ordinary cases, at the same time by serving the defendant with a peremptory notice attached to the copy of the complaint of this case containing the plaintiff's expression of intent to exercise the right to sell further determination.
In full view of the purport of the argument in each statement of evidence No. 10-3 and evidence No. 11-3 of the above defendant, the plaintiff sent a written peremptory notice to the above defendant on October 5, 2012, which was prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case, that "if it is deemed that the plaintiff did not consent to the alteration of the establishment within two months from the date of receipt of the written peremptory notice, or if it is deemed that the plaintiff did not consent to the alteration of the establishment within two months from the date of receipt of the written peremptory notice, the plaintiff shall exercise the right to demand sale under Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act," and that the above written peremptory notice was not received a reply from the above defendant on October 8, 2012 for two months after the arrival of the above defendant, it is recognized that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on December 20, 2012, and the plaintiff can exercise the right to demand sale at any time within two months from the expiration of the period of reply (Article 48 of the Aggregate Buildings Act).