손해배상(기)
1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant corporation shall be revoked;
2. The plaintiffs' defendant corporation.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the underlying facts is as follows, given that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment. As such, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
The part of “Empid Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Empid”) written by Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Empid”) during the period from Nos. 9 to 10 of the judgment of the first instance.
B. The part of the 3th to 15th of the judgment of the court of the first instance stating that the apartment house of the regional housing association should be given is as follows.
"To ensure that only the households wishing to sell apartment units of the regional housing association among the owners of G apartment units of the Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City, Dong-gu G apartment units, our separate regional housing association projects are conducted so that the right to sell the apartment units of KRW 8,500,000 per square year can be granted, and it is confirmed that it should be completed regardless of the progress of the project, regardless of the progress of the project, at any time, of the matters concerning the progress of the project."
2. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal
A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion was known through the relevant cases between the plaintiffs and the defendant Emnid, but some of them avoided the receipt of the copy, original copy, etc. of the complaint of this case.
This does not constitute a case where Defendant E-L could not comply with the appeal period due to a cause not attributable to Defendant E-L, and thus, Defendant E-L’s appeal is unlawful.
B. If the original copy, the original copy, etc. of the judgment was served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant falls under the case where the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, within two weeks after