1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff is an aggregate building consisting of six households in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant aggregate building”).

(2) The owner of the instant condominium is the owner of Article 102, and the defendant is the owner of Article 103 among the instant condominiums. (2) The owner of the instant condominiums has made a resolution to reconstruct the instant condominiums. This meets the requirements of Article 47 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings”).

3) Accordingly, pursuant to Article 48 of the Aggregate Buildings Act, the plaintiff, who was delegated with all acts concerning reconstruction by the other sectional owners except the defendant, sent a written notification demanding the defendant to reply within two months as to whether he will participate in reconstruction as of April 14, 2014. However, the defendant did not reply within the above reply period. Thus, it is deemed that the defendant made a reply pursuant to Article 48(3) of the Aggregate Buildings Act that he would not participate in reconstruction. 4) Accordingly, pursuant to Article 48(4) of the Aggregate Buildings Act, the plaintiff, who was the sectional owner who agreed to the rebuilding of the aggregate building of this case, requested the defendant that he would not participate in reconstruction, sell the sectional ownership of Article 103 of the Aggregate Buildings of this case and the right to use site at the market price.

B. In the case of reconstruction of an aggregate building subject to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), the eligibility of the plaintiff can be a problem because the reconstruction project should be implemented by the reconstruction association.

However, the evidence submitted in this case and the purport of the whole argument are somewhat unclear as to whether the reconstruction of the aggregate building in this case claimed by the plaintiff constitutes a reconstruction subject to the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents.