손해배상(기)
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
1. The first instance court’s legality of the subsequent appeal filed by Defendant E and F, by means of public notice, with regard to Defendant E and F, the litigation procedures, including the service of a copy of a complaint, against Defendant E and F, and served by public notice on July 19, 2018. The certified copy of the first instance judgment rendered on July 18, 2018 was served by public notice, and the said Defendants filed an appeal for subsequent completion with the first instance court on August 28, 2018 is apparent in the record.
Thus, the above defendants could not observe the appeal period because they were unaware of the progress and result of the lawsuit of this case due to reasons not attributable to them.
Therefore, the appeal by the above defendants is lawful.
2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court in this part, with the exception of the following additional determination, is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, one of the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance is one day.
India and India
2. Return of unjust enrichment; and
3. The scope of return of unjust enrichment is limited to the part against the Defendants, and the relevant part is cited under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. Additional determination
A. Defendant E and F asserted that, on May 19, 2010, the Plaintiff’s duty to return the said real estate should be performed in preference to the Defendants’ duty to return, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s return of the said real estate should be returned by the Plaintiff, as stipulated in the basic agreement concluded between the Defendants and the Chairperson T of the Promotion Committee for the Establishment of the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association and the Vice-Chairperson, U.S. (Attachment to the Answer as of February 18, 2019
However, it is difficult to recognize that the above basic agreement alone has an effect on the Plaintiff, not the said basic agreement, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff should return the above real estate to the said Defendants prior to performing the said Defendants’ obligation to deliver real estate or the obligation to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent solely on the basis of the above basic agreement. Thus, this part of the Defendants’ assertion cannot be accepted.
(b) Defendant E, F.