1. The plaintiff, in accordance with the purport of the claim that was modified in exchange for the trial,

A. DefendantO and P shall be from the Plaintiff 336,11.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a reconstruction maintenance project association established for the purpose of the reconstruction project of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Western District CJ, and the defendants are the owners of the land or buildings within the above project area.

However, the defendant S sold the building to CI on May 3, 2012.

B. On May 16, 2003, the Plaintiff: (a) on May 16, 2003, pursuant to Article 44(1) of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 6916, May 29, 2003); (b) the head of Seodaemun-gu, Seoul and the head of Seodaemun-gu, the head of the Gu has completed the establishment registration on May 3, 2005 with the approval for the establishment of the association for the purpose of removing existing buildings on the land outside AP and 76 parcels; and (c) on May 11, 2009, the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) designated and publicly notified an area authorized to establish the above association as a housing reconstruction improvement zone; and (d) the Plaintiff obtained the approval for the alteration of the project implementation zone as CJ 13,020 square meters, members of the association, 73311, land owners, etc.

3) On January 15, 2010, the Plaintiff obtained authorization to change the establishment following the Plaintiff’s amendment of the articles of incorporation, the election of union officers, and representatives. On August 26, 201, the Plaintiff again obtained authorization to change the establishment on the grounds of change of the name of union members, and new union membership. 4) The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, and sought a sale claim and delivery of real estate in accordance with Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act, on the grounds that the Defendants did not consent to the establishment of the association or fall under a building or land owner. At the first instance court, the Plaintiff lost its effect due to the lapse of the period for exercising the Plaintiff’s right

5 After August 16, 2013, the Plaintiff opened an extraordinary general meeting on August 16, 2013 and resolved to change the establishment of the association, and then the documents related to the general meeting and 110 persons.