1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Fact-finding;

A. On February 9, 2006, pursuant to Article 4 (2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), the head of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government designated and publicly announced D Japan as “A Housing Reconstruction Improvement Zone (hereinafter “instant improvement zone”).

B. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction association established under the Urban Improvement Act for the purpose of promoting a housing reconstruction project for apartment and commercial buildings in the instant rearrangement zone, including each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”), and completed the establishment registration on December 28, 2010 with the approval of establishment from the head of Gangdong-gu Office after the inaugural general meeting on December 3, 2010.

C. Defendant B owns each of the above real estate and the building listed in Section 1-2 of the attached Table No. 1-1, and Defendant C owns each of the buildings listed in Section 40/72 and Section 2-2 of the share of the land listed in Section 2-1 of the attached Table No. 2-1, and all of the Defendants did not join as the Plaintiff’s partner.

Attached Form

Of the land indicated in paragraph (1) of the list 1-1, only 150 square meters of the total floor area of the building indicated in paragraph (1) of the attached Form 1, 78.4 square meters in the attached Form 1, 48.2 square meters in the total floor area of the building indicated in paragraph (2) of the attached Table 1-2, and 193.6 square meters in the attached Table 2-1, and only 209 square meters in the attached Form 2, and 150 square meters of the total floor area of the building indicated in paragraph (2) of the attached Table, are included

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute (Defendant C), Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-3 through 6, Gap evidence 7-1 through 9-2, Gap evidence 1-1-1 through 4, Gap evidence 1-1-4, the result of the survey and appraisal conducted by appraiser E, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On January 24, 2011, the Plaintiff’s assertion made a reply to the Defendants as to whether the Defendants participated in the re-building pursuant to Article 39 of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Article 48 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “the Act”).