손해배상(기)
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs succeeding intervenors E, G, I, and K are dismissed.
2. An objection to the trial;
1. The reasons why the court shall explain this case in this case are added to the following judgments at the last place of the sixth decision of the court of the first instance, and the following judgments at the seventh one to 8th one of the decision of the court of the first instance.
3. Determination,
A. In addition to the following cases, the part on the determination of whether the sale price is in violation of the law is determined as follows, it is consistent with the reasoning of the first instance judgment, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
【Additional Determination Matters】
3. According to the evidence Nos. 16 (including paper numbers) of the judgment on the claims of plaintiffs CT, DO, EL, F, F, Q, FY, and EH, it can be acknowledged that each of the intervenors listed in the separate sheet of plaintiffs CT, DO, EL, F, F, Q, F, Y, and E transferred the rights under the sales contract concluded between the defendant and the defendant to each of the intervenors (the intervenors succeeded in the first instance) in the separate sheet of the plaintiffs succeeding intervenors (the intervenors succeeded in the first instance). Thus, the above plaintiffs' assertion on the premise that the above plaintiffs are still entitled right holders under the apartment sales contract of this case is without merit.
[Supplementary Use]
4. Determination as to the remaining plaintiffs and intervenors' claims
A. We examine whether the calculation of sale price is in violation of the Act and whether it can include the appraised amount of the instant lot and the annual support cost for the instant lot in the “housing site cost” and “construction cost” constituting the upper limit of sale price under Article 38-2(1) and (2) of the Housing Act.
In full view of the purport of the arguments as a result of the fact-finding conducted by the Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration, Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 7, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 19, and the fact-finding conducted by the Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration of this Court, the defendant acquired the ownership of the housing site of this case including the instant pond land through the land expropriation procedure designated in accordance with the Housing Site Development Promotion Act.