관리처분계획변경무효확인등
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the part concerning “E.” from No. 3 to No. 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance is written as “E.”. Thus, this part is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
A person shall be appointed.
E. The Plaintiffs are the owners of land within the A Area Housing Redevelopment Improvement Zone.
A person shall be appointed.
2. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this part of the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the first project implementation plan is as stated in the part concerning the plaintiffs in the Section 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since this part of the decision of the court of first instance is the same as that concerning the plaintiffs in the Section 6 through 8 of the decision of the court of first instance.
3. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the judgment on the claim for nullification of the second project implementation plan are as follows. This part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the part concerning the plaintiffs in the 9th through 21th of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or replacement of each corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this part shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Part 21, Chapters 8 through 11, “part of the plaintiffs are during the period between 8 and 11,” below, shall be made as indicated in the “EM.” 【S. Some members, including Plaintiff CS, filed a lawsuit against the head of Busan Metropolitan City Dong-gu Busan District Court 2014Guhap3847 against the Defendant, but the lawsuit was dismissed on September 10, 2015.
Accordingly, Plaintiff CS et al. appealed with Busan High Court Decision 2015Nu23137, but was dismissed on July 12, 2017, and the appeal was filed by Supreme Court Decision 2017Du56698, Oct. 31, 2017, but the said judgment became final and conclusive as it was, although it was appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2017Du5698.
The plaintiffs.