1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the defendant added the following judgments as to the matters alleged in the trial of the court of first instance, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the defendant. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. According to Article 16(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, in order to establish a Plaintiff association, the owner of the land, etc. shall obtain authorization with the consent of at least 3/4 of the owner of the land, etc., who is included in the number of consenting consents for the establishment of the Plaintiff association. Among the written consent of the owner of the land, the following are found: ① 55 written consent with different seals; ② written consent with the seal impression attached to the personal data column of the written consent; ② consent suspected of the circumstance that the written consent was voluntarily prepared by the arbitra group due to the difference between the body and the body in the signature column; ③ Five written consent without the seal impression attached; ④

If the consent rate for the establishment of the Plaintiff association is not less than 3/4 of the owners of land, etc., the authorization for establishment of the Plaintiff association is null and void.

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 defendant.

B. We examine the judgment, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is a defect as alleged by the Plaintiff in the establishment authorization of this case, and the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

[In addition, according to each description of Gap evidence Nos. 15, 16, and 17 (a serial number) and each description, some of the owners of land within the redevelopment area of this case against the head of Seongbuk-gu, on the grounds of defects as alleged by the defendant.