사업시행계획취소
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
3. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of the following contents:
The term "6,624.56 square meters" in the 16th place of 3-Myeon shall be "6,633.50 square meters".
10 pages 13, "Law No. 13408", shall be deemed to be "Act No. 13508."
The 11th parallel 16th parallel 14th parallel 15th parallel 16th parallel 15th parallel as follows:
Article 24(7) proviso of Article 24(7) and Article 24(3)9-2 of the former Act apply to the Defendant’s association’s general meeting of association 1) : (a) the Defendant’s association’s general meeting of association determines the total amount of rearrangement project costs at the general meeting of 2010, which is general meeting of 2010, to the annual general meeting of 2017; and (b) decided the total amount of rearrangement project costs at the general
In full view of the facts acknowledged above and the legislative process and purport of Article 24(7) of the former Act, in order to determine whether the proviso of Article 24(7) of the former Act applies to the project implementation plan of this case, it is reasonable to deem that the proviso of Article 24(7) of the former Act applies to cases where the latter increases by more than 10/100 in comparison with the estimated total improvement cost and the estimated total improvement cost (excluding the producer price inflation portion and the cash settlement amount under Article 47 of the former Act) decided at the general meeting of shareholders in 2010 in relation to the project implementation plan of this case.
2. As to the subject of comparison with the application of the proviso of Article 24(7) of the former Act, the Plaintiffs asserted to the effect that, from a substantial point of view, the estimation of the rearrangement project cost converted on the basis of the total building space shall be compared in order to compare the increase between the estimated total building space and the estimated total building space, and the Defendant shall also