1. The construction (extension) of the Defendant’s ground sales facilities (market) in Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Jung-gu, Seoul, with the Defendant on March 8, 2012 and 352.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 13, 1980, on the ground of 3,002 square meters in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant land”), sales facilities of reinforced concrete structure-other sales facilities (market) on the third floor above the ground of the 1st floor above (hereinafter “instant commercial building”). All sectional owners who purchased the instant commercial building at the time established a D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) for the management of the instant commercial building and acquired the relevant shares in accordance with the number of their stores after establishing the D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”).

Since then, D had a de facto role as a management body of the commercial building of this case, such as making a resolution on important matters concerning the management of the building, including the renovation and repair of the commercial building of this case at the general meeting of shareholders.

B. In December 208, 2008, 296 members of the sectional owner of the instant commercial building (350 sectional owners were 353 sectional owners, but E, F, and G were not the sectional owners at the time of resolution for extension and large-scale repair, and at that time, 350 sectional owners of the instant commercial building were all 350 square meters of the total area of the exclusive ownership 6,481.88 square meters of the instant commercial building), among the 350 sectional owners of the instant commercial building (hereinafter “instant extension”), decided to extend the sales facilities of the second floor (market) 2,512.5 square meters on the rooftop of the instant commercial building (hereinafter “instant extension”), and to repair the stairs room from the first floor to the third floor as special escape facilities (hereinafter “the instant large-scale repair”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant resolution”). C.

Accordingly, at the time of the resolution of this case on February 7, 2012, the representative of D, who was the representative of D, applied for permission for the extension and large-scale repair of this case to the defendant in the name of “B and 353 persons,” accompanied by the list of sectional owners who agreed to the extension and large-scale repair, and the owner’s signature and seal was omitted in the column of the building owner among the application for building permission submitted at the time.

The defendant for the same year

3. 8. The Building Act (hereinafter “Act”) provides that the Enforcement Decree and the Enforcement Rule shall be “Enforcement Decree” and “Enforcement Rule” respectively.