1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Grounds for entering this case in this case by the court of first instance, and ① to add the following to the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance, or ② to add the judgment of the court of first instance as prescribed in paragraph (2), the remainder except for the part concerning co-defendant G in the judgment of the court of first instance.

(Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). Of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, 15 pages 18: Added to the following, the Plaintiff asserted that, in the process of demanding a written consent for remodeling project from the sectional owners of the apartment in this case, the Plaintiff informed the details of the cost sharing through materials, such as guide books, etc., in the process of demanding a written consent for the remodeling project. However, the entries of evidence No. 8 through 10 alone are insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion

2. The further determination of this Court

A. The remaining Defendants except Defendant E and the Intervenors of Defendant E asserted that the Plaintiff’s peremptory notice of whether the Plaintiff would participate in the remodeling of the apartment in this case was unlawful on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not promptly notify the Defendants in writing.

B. According to Article 48(1) of the Aggregate Buildings Act, which is applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 22(3) of the Housing Act, in order to exercise the right to demand sale against the sectional owners who did not agree with the remodeling resolution, the Plaintiff, such as the Plaintiff, must first urge the sectional owners to respond to whether they would participate in the remodeling without delay.

Here, “in without delay” means that at least an appropriate time should be taken in light of the progress of remodeling projects, even if a remodeling resolution is not immediately after the completion of the remodeling resolution.

[See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da15623, 15630 decided February 12, 2015, etc.] C.

In this case, the plaintiff is from the head of Yangcheon-gu Seoul on August 29, 2008.