손해배상
1. The decision of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the decision of the plaintiff (appointed party) corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.
1. The reasons why the court's explanation concerning the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: ① "Act No. 13 of the third party judgment" is as "Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents"; ② "Decree 16" is as "Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents"; ② "B site site site" in the fifth party 21 is as "B site interest"; ③ "No. 7 side 18" is as "Real Estate Register"; ④ "No. 5 side 8" is as "Real Estate Register"; and ④ other than the entry, it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of
[Supplementary Enemy]
(1) Determination on the part on the selection of a person eligible for parcelling-out (1) is based on the fact that C is the owner of a L substitute 82 square meters used as a road; <2, Oct. 10, 2006; 3/54 shares (limited to shares 9.17 square meters in total; hereinafter referred to as “instant co-ownership shares”) in each of 3/54 square meters in the M substitute 7 square meters in use as a road; 2, N substitute 18 square meters in total; 2,000 square meters in total; 2,000 square meters in total; 3,000 square meters in total; 2,000 square meters in lots; 2,000 square meters in lots; 3,000 square meters in lots in lots; and < Amended by Act No. 48(3) of the instant co-ownership shares in this case acquired by C pursuant to each of the subparagraphs of Article 48(3) of the Association’s articles of incorporation, including this, on the ground that C is owned in front of the apartment.
Thus, the issue of this case is whether C unfairly selects C as a seller even though C does not correspond to a seller, and as such, whether the Plaintiff and the remaining designated parties suffered damages is the issue of this case.
(2) However, Article 21 of the Urban Redevelopment Act, Article 35 of the Civil Act, in a case where a member of the Urban Redevelopment Association established under the Urban Redevelopment Act suffers direct damage due to an official tort committed by a representative organ such as a director or other president