1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The court's explanation of this case is as follows: (a) the 12th court's 10 to 17th court's 12th court's 12th court's 2th court's 2th court's 14th court's 11th court's 3th court's 3th court's 10th court's 3th court's 10th court's 2th court's 10th court'

2. (3) The defendants asserts that the rebuilding of this case is planned to cover the total amount of the original project cost with general revenues, and that it is possible to cover the project cost without any separate contributions in light of the actual business feasibility. Therefore, in the rebuilding resolution of this case, it is unnecessary to specify the additional shares to be borne by the sectional owners in the rebuilding resolution of this case. However, as seen earlier, the rebuilding agreement of this case (No. 5 evidence) or rebuilding agreement (No. 6 evidence) states that "the total amount of the rebuilding project cost of this case is appropriated only for general revenues, and no additional shares shall be imposed on the sectional owners." Rather, the rebuilding agreement of this case is not specified that "the total amount of the rebuilding project cost of this case is appropriated for the general revenues, and no additional shares shall be imposed on the sectional owners." In addition, the rebuilding agreement of this case not only takes into account the "income from sale through general lots" but also the "loan money paid or refunded after being supplied with neighborhood living facilities and sales facilities by financial institutions and construction companies", and Article 56 (1) of the rebuilding agreement should apply mutatis mutandis to the amount of the new appraisal plan.

"..." If the proceeds from sale do not meet the cost of the project, such as the loan, the amount of the loss is high.