1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The court's explanation of this case by the court of the first instance as to this case is consistent with the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of the judgment of the plaintiffs as to the allegations in the first instance court under Paragraph (2) below, since Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are

(1) The court of first instance that rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion even if all evidence submitted in the court of first instance were examined, except as otherwise alleged by the Plaintiffs in paragraph (2) below. The court of first instance that rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion is justifiable in order to calculate the amount of charges for individual members claiming the additional Plaintiffs. In order to calculate the proportional rate, the court should conclude a construction contract with the contractor and determine the construction cost that accounts for the majority of the total project cost after concluding the construction contract. The Defendant was unable to calculate the construction cost on the ground that there was no contract for construction work before the procedure for application for parcelling-out, and the Defendant did not notify the members of the outline of the total amount of charges.

Judgment

(1) A project implementer shall notify the owners of lands, etc. of outlined charges, period for application for parcelling-out, and other matters prescribed by the Presidential Decree within 60 days from the date of public announcement of authorization for project implementation under Article 28 (4) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, which are prescribed to be publicly announced in a daily newspaper.