부당이득금
1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the claims expanded and reduced in this court, shall be modified as follows:
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows. The defendant’s explanation of this case is identical to the ground for the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the judgment, which is concluded again or newly made by this court, as set forth in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The phrase “land” written or added in the part of “recognition, Claim, and Determination,” shall be integrated into “the instant land” (excluding the cited part of the Supreme Court precedents). The phrase “appraisal” shall be integrated into “the appraiser of the first instance trial.”
The term "this court" shall be referred to as "the first instance court" collectively.
6. One to six parallels shall be cut down as follows:
The plaintiffs' respective inheritance shares in the land of this case are 60/680, the plaintiffs 1,680, the C, D, E, F, G, and H are 60/6,900, the plaintiffs 1, J, K, K, L, M, M, and R are 280/6,900, respectively, and plaintiffs O, P, Q, Q, and R are 105/6,900 "the result of the fact inquiry" in the 6th 12th 6th 12th of "the result of the fact inquiry".
8. The 8th 20th 20th 20th 20th 20th 1st 9th 1st 3th 202.
In fact, on the other hand, on January 14, 1997, the defendant announced U.S. on the urban planning project for the "V." (the road and the implementation plan for the plaza were publicly announced, and the WW was established and implemented. The land of this case was included in the business site, and the compensation circumstances and payment records for the land of this case prepared around that time are indicated as the owner of the network T as above.
However, the defendant is a person who has not paid land compensation according to the above compensation condition and payment record to the deceased T's heir, and the evidence Nos. 2-1 and 2-2.