1. Resettlement funds for Defendant B Housing Redevelopment Project Cooperatives added by the Plaintiff in this Court,

The reasons for this part, such as the reasons for the ruling, are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance except that the “this court” of the first instance court Nos. 6, 1, and 6 as “court of the first instance” is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance (section 3, 2, and 6). Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

The adjudication of acceptance of this case by the plaintiff on the claim against the defendant local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City should be revoked for the following reasons.

1) The Plaintiff intended to conclude the sales contract within the period of the sales contract, but the Defendant Union rejected the conclusion of the sales contract unfairly. In other words, despite the obligation to conclude the sales contract, the Defendant Union set up the first-class collateral security right on the instant real estate as security for the Plaintiff’s temporary moving moving expenses due to the implementation of the instant project, and refused the sales contract under the premise that the Plaintiff would move out from the Seoul Mapo-gu Airport L L, Seoul, which was the Plaintiff’s residence at the time. Therefore, the Plaintiff is not a person subject to cash settlement, and thus, the acceptance ruling based on the premise that the Plaintiff is a person subject to cash settlement is illegal. 2) The Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Administrator of the Seoul Metropolitan Government (60 months from the date of authorization for the implementation of the project) was invalidated after the lapse of the project execution period (60 months from the date

Therefore, although the approval disposition of this case is illegal, since the defendant local Land Tribunal rendered the adjudication of acceptance of this case based on the approval disposition of this case, the adjudication of acceptance of this case is illegal.

3. The Defendant Union made loans to the Plaintiff for “special director expenses” and made false statements as if the sales contract was concluded.