2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The reasons for the court's argument on this part are as follows: from June 15, 2010 to June 28, 2010 to June 28, 2010 to June 28, 2010 to which 60 days have passed from the date following the expiration date of the consultation period specified in the notice of compensation for Plaintiff B, C, D, and F; and from June 28, 2010 to the date following the expiration date of the consultation period, Plaintiff E who requested the application for expropriation after the expiration of the consultation period is obliged to pay additional dues corresponding to the period from June 28, 2010 to the date of the application for each expropriation decision.

(2) Since it is identical to the entry in paragraph (2), it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. In the event that the Defendant’s assertion does not apply to the requirements for cash settlement under Article 47 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012; hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), or Article 45(5) of the Defendant’s articles of incorporation, the application for parcelling-out is withdrawn within the period for parcelling-out, the Plaintiff is excluded from the object of parcelling-out under the authorized management and disposition plan, and the contract is not concluded within the period for parcelling-out as prescribed by the Defendant’s articles of incorporation, and the Plaintiff did not acquire the status of the object of cash settlement. Thus,

Even if the plaintiffs are eligible for cash settlement, after the expiration of the period for application for parcelling-out.