손해배상(기)
All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the instant case is as follows. The Plaintiffs’ assertion added by this court is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment as set forth in paragraph (2) below, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, “C” (hereinafter “C”) in the first part of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter “C”) shall be used as “Defendant C” (the trade name before the change is “C,” and the trade name was changed to “AC,” March 16, 2020), and all “C” shall be used as “Defendant”.
The third party of the first instance judgment "the defendant" in the first instance judgment shall be put into "D".
The following shall be added to the third instance judgment following the second instance judgment:
On February 21, 2020, the Defendant taken over the instant litigation procedure after the completion of the rehabilitation procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Defendant, who is a manager," instead of being prior to and after the commencement, termination, and the process of litigation). The Defendant’s “Defendant,” as the “Defendant’s custodian,” as the “Defendant’s custodian,” in the 11th instance judgment of the first instance court.
The 11th judgment of the first instance court "the plaintiff" in the 5th judgment shall be applied to "the defendant".
The following shall be added to the 7th instance judgment of the first instance.
In relation to this case, the plaintiffs asserted that they were able to obtain additional loans by obtaining permission for development activities on each real estate of this case, and that they were able to obtain additional loans due to the execution of the provisional disposition of this case, which led to the application for revocation of permission for development activities. However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone is insufficient to acknowledge this, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. In addition, even if so, such special circumstance cannot be deemed to have been known or known by the defendant, the following is added to the "6th of the judgment of the first instance."
"The plaintiffs shall not engage in development activities AD.