재개발보상금증액
1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against Plaintiff D corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: 20, 21, 13, and 12, 20, 21, and 13, which correspond to the part concerning the plaintiff's claim for the cost of moving a residence of the plaintiff D among the judgment of the court of first instance; 20, 21, and 13, which are the part concerning the plaintiffs' primary claim added in the court of first instance, the part concerning the claim for compensation extended in the court of first instance, and the part concerning the plaintiff's loss among the judgment of the court of first instance, are as stated in the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance
2. Additional determination
A. 1) The promotion committee for the establishment of the defendant's association added in the trial room for the plaintiffs filed an application with the head of the competent Gu for the establishment of a new building with the consent letter, the design outline of the new building, etc. from the owners of the land, etc., and the employees of the maintenance business entity without authority voluntarily supplement the public column of the consent letter and without validity, and as long as the establishment of a new building is null and void, the establishment of an association is null and void, and the subsequent expropriation decision is null and void. 2) Since the establishment of an association is invalid, it is difficult to recognize that the establishment decision of the defendant's association is null and void merely by the descriptions of the evidence No. 42-1 and No. 2 of the evidence No. 42-1 and 2
B. The part concerning the claim for compensation for losses is unfair since the Plaintiffs’ assertion is forced to provide compensation for losses equivalent to 72% of the market price at the time of authorization for the implementation of the project in accordance with the result of the appraisal by the first instance court, that is, where the Plaintiffs were to receive compensation for losses equivalent to the market price at the time of authorization for the implementation of the project in the instant case, and thus, the amount equivalent to the difference between the market price and the market price should be paid.