손해배상(기)
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
3. Total costs of litigation are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
1. Basic facts
A. 1) The Defendant is an urban development project in North-Gu Eri-gu, Fri-ri and Gri-ri, North-si (hereinafter “instant urban development project”).
(2) For the purpose of implementation, Plaintiff A was assigned to the association designated as an implementer under the Urban Development Act from the Posi-gu, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si on January 3, 2008, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, 134.
B. The Defendant’s reclamation work submitted the starting date for implementing the instant urban development project on January 31, 2012, and thereafter, from May 2012, the site development work commenced with respect to the land development work and performed reclamation work for each of the instant land before the Plaintiffs sold each of the instant land as follows:
(hereinafter “instant banking work”). On April 26, 201, prior to the instant banking work, on April 26, 201, the notice was made by theO for the authorization of an urban development project implementation plan and a topographical map of the urban management plan (district unit planning). However, the designation of a land scheduled for replotting under Article 35 of the Urban Development Act was not made.
C. On November 27, 2012, Plaintiff A sold the instant land at KRW 646.8 million to Vietnam Co., Ltd., Ltd., an agricultural company, at KRW 1,000,000, and on the same day.