1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendants are final in annex 1 from the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff is a party to the instant improvement zone with the size of 58,488.20 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant improvement zone”).

(2) In the case of the Housing Reconstruction Improvement Project (hereinafter “instant Project”)

In order to implement the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 12640, May 21, 2014; hereinafter “former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas”)

The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and rearrangement project partnership established pursuant to the Mapo-gu Office’s establishment authorization (hereinafter “instant establishment authorization”) from the head of Mapo-gu on March 28, 2014.

Upon receipt of the foregoing, on April 2, 2014, the registration of incorporation was completed, and on May 12, 2015, the head of Mapo-gu issued authorization to establish an association (change) with the head of Mapo-gu Office. 2) The Defendants are the owners of each relevant real estate (land and buildings) indicated in the “mark of real estate” in the attached Table 2 list located in the instant improvement zone.

B. Peremptory 1 on May 15, 2015, the Plaintiff urged Defendant B, E, and F to reply in writing to whether or not they agree to the establishment of the association within two months from the date of receipt of the peremptory notice, and where it is deemed that the Plaintiff would not consent to the establishment of the association because it did not reply within two months from the date of submission or receipt of the written peremptory notice, the Plaintiff would exercise the right to demand sale under Article 39 of the former Urban Improvement Act and Article 48(4) of the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings (hereinafter “the instant peremptory notice”). (hereinafter “the Act”).

(2) Defendant B, E, and F sent each of them. The Plaintiff did not answer whether the Plaintiff consented to the establishment of the association until the lapse of two months from the receipt of the above peremptory notice on each of the pertinent dates stated in attached Table 1. (2) On January 14, 2016, the Plaintiff submitted an application for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim along with the instant peremptory notice against Defendant H, I, and J.

Defendant H, I, and I.