1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. By means of the reduction of claims in the trial.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and maintenance project partnership under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) promoting a housing reconstruction project for multi-family housing and ancillary facilities (hereinafter “instant reconstruction project”) on the land of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Gangdong-gu, and the Defendant is the owner of each real estate listed in the attached Table of the instant reconstruction project site (hereinafter “instant real estate”). The Plaintiff did not consent to the instant reconstruction project.

B. After holding an inaugural general meeting on April 4, 2010, the Seoul Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Promotion Committee for the Establishment of the AHousing Reconstruction Project, attached a written consent of 808 persons among the 952 owners of the entire land, etc. in the project zone (total consent rate of 84.87%, and 72.72% of the sectional owner of the commercial building) and applied for authorization to establish the association to the head of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government. The head of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government approved the establishment of the Plaintiff

(hereinafter referred to as “instant authorization for establishment”). (c)

On September 24, 2011, the Plaintiff held a general meeting and confirmed the articles of association, and obtained on October 12, 201, a disposition to approve the establishment of an association from the head of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant disposition to approve the establishment of an association”).

On July 17, 2012, after the Plaintiff received the instant authorization for modification, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant in writing as to whether he/she consented to the establishment of the association, and the above peremptory notice reached the Defendant on July 18, 2012, but did not respond to whether the Defendant received the above peremptory notice and did not respond to the consent thereof even after two months have elapsed.

E. On the premise that the Plaintiff exercised the right to demand sale under Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking ownership transfer registration and transfer of the instant real estate. A duplicate of the instant complaint was served on the Defendant on December 16, 2012.

F. The appraised value of the instant real estate as of December 16, 2012 is KRW 4,558,583,520.

[Reasons for Recognition] No dispute has been raised.