1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) except for the addition of “a judgment on the grounds of appeal 4.0” following the 13th 12th son of the judgment of the court of first instance, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the part on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance; (b) thereby,

【Supplementary Part】 4. Judgment on the Grounds for Appeal

A. The Defendants’ assertion that they are not the counter-party to the exercise of the right to demand sale had already agreed to re-building, and thus, they do not constitute sectional owners who did not agree to the re-building resolution stipulated in Article 48(1) through (3) of the Aggregate Buildings Act. Accordingly, according to each of the evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the Plaintiffs cannot exercise the right to demand sale against the Defendants. According to each of the evidence Nos. 4 and 5, Defendant C shall be deemed to have signed and sealed on December 16, 2014; the remaining Defendants on January 21, 2015 in order to promote the instant re-building project, signed and sealed on the construction contract entered into between the parties to the claim for sale under Article 48 of the Aggregate Buildings Act and the owners of sectional owners who did not consent to the re-building resolution that is the counter-party to the claim for sale under Article 48 of the same Act, including those who did not attend the meeting and those who did not

The Defendants did not attend the instant rebuilding resolution, which was held on November 18, 2015, as seen earlier.

Therefore, the defendants constitute the counter-party to the claim for sale, and the above argument is without merit.

B. Determination 1 on the assertion that the letter of demand for participation in re-building has not been reached to Defendant C is that the letter of demand for participation in re-building as stipulated in Article 48(1) of the Aggregate Buildings Act has not reached Defendant C. Thus, the claim for sale against Defendant C is in violation of the procedure stipulated in Article 48 of the Aggregate Buildings Act. 2) The judgment on the claim for sale against Defendant C is in violation of the procedure stipulated in Article 48 of the Aggregate Buildings Act, and written evidence No. 7-1