1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

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

3. Defendant U, V, and W’s lawsuit acceptance.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows: “The deceased G, who was the Defendant of the first instance trial (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on March 6, 2017 during the instant lawsuit, and Defendant V and W, the deceased’s spouse, succeeded to the deceased’s possession as it is, taking over the instant lawsuit.” The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning for the first instance judgment against the Defendant B and the deceased, except for the addition of the following determination as to the matters alleged in the trial, and thus, this is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. According to Article 16(1) of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, the intent of the Defendants’ assertion is to establish the Plaintiff Association with the consent of at least 3/4 of the owners of land or structure

However, among the written consents of owners of land, etc. included in the number of consenting owners of land, etc. included in the Plaintiff’s association establishment consent, ① 5 different written consents from the seal impression, ② a written consent that is suspected of being voluntarily prepared by the arbitr group due to the difference between the body and the body in the signature column of the written consent, ③ five written consent that is not attached with the certificate of seal impression, ④ a number of written consents that cannot be viewed as valid with the consent, such as 17 written consent without the consent of the representative.

If the ratio of consent to the establishment of the Plaintiff association is re-calculated with the exception of the above-mentioned written consent agreement, it is null and void because it does not meet at least 3/4 of the owners of the land, etc.

Therefore, since both the management and disposal plan and expropriation ruling of this case based on the establishment authorization of this case are invalid, the plaintiff has no right to seek a transfer of real estate against the defendants.

B. Determination feet, Gap evidence 28 No. 1, 2, 29, Eul.