손해배상금
1. Defendant D’s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal shall be borne by Defendant D.
purport, purport, and.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows. Thus, the reasoning of the court’s explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. The phrase “322,00,000” in Part 3 of the first instance judgment shall be read as “322,00,000” in Part 8 of the third instance judgment.
Part 3 "C" in Part 19 of the decision of the first instance shall be added to "Defendant" in the front of "the decision of the first instance."
Part 4 of the first instance court's decision "B Nos. 1 and 2" in Part 16 of the first instance court's decision shall be "B or B No. 1 through 8 (the number of evidence shall include the number)."
On the 5th judgment of the first instance court, the part of the 14th to 18th judgment "no evidence exists" shall be followed as follows.
According to each description of evidence Nos. 1-1 and evidence No. 2-1, each of the instant sales contract, “The amount of the instant contract shall be deposited into the seller’s passbook by September 7, 2015.” However, in full view of the entries of evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, and 7 (including serial numbers) and the testimony and arguments of the witness H at the trial, the foregoing wording was concluded for the use of each of the instant sales contract as a site for multi-family housing with the neighboring land Nos. 1, 1-1 and 2-1, and it is necessary to conclude each of the instant four parcels of land, which were different owners, even before the conclusion of the sales contract, with the view to all of the instant parcels of land no later than September 4, 2015.