The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, it is against the defendant.

1. The court's explanation of this case is identical to the statement in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or deletion as follows. Thus, the court's explanation of this case is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Defendant B’s “Defendant B” in Section 11 of the judgment of the first instance is deleted, and Defendant C’s “Defendant C” in Section 12 is removed, and the “Defendant C” in Section 13 is removed.

If the judgment of the court of first instance 3 pages 8, each "real estate listed in the attached Table No. 5" shall be deemed "real estate listed in the attached Table No. 5".

The first instance court's fourth to fourth, fourth to fourth, fourth to fourth.

3. The judgment on the main defense of Defendant B’s main defense is as follows. The judgment on the main defense of Defendant B’s main defense is as follows: (a) 7 pages 7 of the judgment of the first instance court is as follows: (b) from 3 parallels “C” to 3 pages; and (c) the Defendant possessing the real estate listed in the table 5 is as follows: (a) the Defendant is obligated to withdraw from the said real estate to the Plaintiff implementing the instant project; (b) the abbreviation of the main defense of Defendant B is as follows; and (c) the term “Plaintiff” is as “Plaintiff Union” for convenience; and (d) the judgment on the main defense of the Defendant on March 3.

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion did not go through legitimate procedures prescribed by the Urban Development Act in the process of obtaining authorization to establish an association.

E In order to eliminate the requirements under Article 13(3) of the Urban Development Act (the consent of at least 1/2 of the total number of landowners) on a legal basis, E donated one square meter out of land in each relevant parcel to its employees and met the above requirements in a manner that obtains the consent. Thus, the excessive disposition of this case, which is subject to the provisions of the Urban Development Act, is null and void due to apparent defects in the violation of the statutes.

B. However, the above argument by the defendant is not a defense against the plaintiff's right to possess the defendant's right to leave, but an invalid disposition.