1. The Plaintiff’s appeal against Defendant N, P, S, U, W, AA, AB, H, I, O, Q, R, V, X, J, K, and L shall be dismissed in entirety.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and rearrangement project association established to implement a housing reconstruction and rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant project”) on the scale of 19,768 square meters in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government. The Defendants are the owners of each real estate listed in the attached Form 3 real estate list located in the instant project zone and the real estate ownership status of the Defendants is as indicated in the attached Table 2 sale and purchase specification column.

B. From July 2, 2013, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendants a written peremptory notice to the effect that, pursuant to Article 39 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017; hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) and Article 48 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings”), the Plaintiff responded to the Plaintiff’s establishment within two months. However, Defendant H, I, J, K, and L (hereinafter “Defendant H, etc.”) were not reached, and the remaining Defendants received such a peremptory notice did not reply within two months thereafter.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, and stated in the complaint that the Plaintiff shall exercise the right to demand sale of the said Defendants’ real estate owned by the said Defendants, and that the Plaintiff shall exercise the right to demand sale of the said Defendants’ real estate (hereinafter “the Plaintiff”) with respect to five Defendant H et al., who did not arrive at the highest order, stated that the Plaintiff consented to the establishment of the Plaintiff’s association, and attached a written peremptory notice.

The duplicate of the complaint of this case was served on the defendants as indicated below, and five defendants H et al. did not answer whether they agree to the establishment of the plaintiff association within 2 months after being served with the duplicate of the complaint.

I on December 27, 2013, the date of service by Defendant Nos. 1 N on the date of service by Defendant Nos. 1 and 1 N on the date of service by Defendant No. 1214, Feb. 2, 2014