1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 3, 2007, the Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and improvement project association under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) which obtained authorization from the head of the Si/Gun/Gu of Daegu Metropolitan City as an improvement zone (hereinafter “instant improvement zone”), and the Defendants did not join the Plaintiff as the owner of each real estate listed in the separate sheet in the instant improvement zone (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”).

B. On March 8, 2007, an inaugural general meeting was held on the method of obtaining written consent from the owner of the land or building in the instant rearrangement zone, and on May 8, 2007, an application was filed with the head of the Daegu Metropolitan City veterinary Authority for authorization of the establishment.

C. On August 3, 2007, the head of the Daegu Metropolitan City Suwon District District Office issued an authorization for the establishment of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant authorization disposition”) on the ground that the landowner’s consent to 81.05% of the land owners in the instant improvement zone and the landowner’s consent to 7.89% of the land size in the instant improvement zone was obtained (hereinafter “instant authorization disposition”).

The details of each consent ratio above are as follows.

The consent rate of the owners of land or buildings in the instant improvement zone: 81.05% = 368 consenters (121 single owners of land and buildings) or 454 landowners: 77.89% of the land area subject to consent = 40,824 square meters of land area subject to consent = 52,406 square meters of land area subject to consent.

D. On September 28, 2007, the Plaintiff’s exercise of the right to demand sale did not consent to the establishment of the association on September 28, 2007, and responded to the Defendants who did not participate in the instant housing reconstruction project within two months from the date of receipt of whether they would participate in the reconstruction, and within the said period