The judgment below

Defendant A District Housing Redevelopment Project Association on April 4, 2013.

The grounds of appeal and incidental grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of incidental appeal by Defendant A District Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association (hereinafter “Defendant A”)

A. Article 48(1) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 12116, Dec. 24, 2013; hereinafter “former Act”) stipulates that when the period for application for parcelling-out under Article 46 expires, a project implementer (excluding a project implementer for a residential environment improvement project implemented by the methods under Article 6(1)1 through 3 and a residential environment management project implemented by the methods under paragraph (5) of the same Article) shall establish a management and disposal plan including the following matters based on the current status of application for parcelling-out under Article 46 and obtain authorization from the head of a Si/Gun. As one of the matters included in the management and disposal plan under subparagraph 4, the price (in cases of buildings removed under Article 48-2(2) before the project implementation is authorized, the price shall be based on the date permission is obtained from the head of a Si/Gun), and Article 48(2) of the same Act provides that the details of the management and disposal plan shall be distributed to the previous site area or structure under subparagraph 1:

In addition, Article 48 (5) 1 of the same Act provides that when evaluating the previous asset price, etc. in housing redevelopment projects or urban environment rearrangement projects, at least two appraisal business entities selected by the head of a Si/Gun among appraisal business entities under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act shall be appraised.