1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the case's 3-b reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. As seen earlier, according to the Defendant’s articles of incorporation Article 49(2)3 main text and proviso of the Defendant’s articles of incorporation, where several applicants for parcelling-out own one house, several applicants for parcelling-out shall be considered as one purchaser, but in the case of a multi-family house in which the shares or divided registration was completed after obtaining a building permit as a detached house before the introduction of the multi-family house system, only one person per household shall be the number of households in the multi-family house.

According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), the house in this case was approved for use on April 30, 1986, and the fact that the preservation registration was completed on May 31, 1986 by sharing of persons on May 31, 1986 can be recognized. Thus, if the house in this case is de facto multi-family house as stipulated in the proviso of Article 49 (2) 3 of the Articles of incorporation of the defendant, the house in this case shall be eligible for parcelling-out according to the number of households in multi-family house

2) According to the following facts, based on the evidence Nos. 3, 16, 17, and Eul evidence Nos. 10 and 13, the witness N of the trial, the witness of the trial at the trial at the trial, the witness of the trial at the trial at the court at the court at the court at the court at the court of Seodaemun-gu, the whole purport of the pleadings as a result of the fact inquiry at the court at the court at the court at the court at the court of Seodaemun-gu on December 9, 2016, the instant

① The instant housing was owned by each of 1/5 shares in P, Q, R, S, and T five shares, and its preservation registration was completed.

However, there is evidence that there was one household corresponding to each ownership share, there is a statement of No. 19 and a personal examination of the plaintiff A in this court.