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.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is next to the judgment of the first instance.

In addition to the revision as stated in paragraph (2) and addition of the judgment in the next trial, the relevant part shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the plaintiffs.

B. Part 1) The second part of the judgment of the court of first instance (“instant B”) refers to “B association” in the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance as “B association. 2) From the third end of the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance to the third part of the fourth part, the author adds “9. Future reconstruction-related Act is amended or the upper limit of the sale price is abolished,” and there is no substantial discrimination in the sale price of the union members by raising the appraisal price and the ownership ratio of only A owners, such as when the sale price is changed or the upper limit system is abolished, and the profit distribution following the abolition of the upper limit system shall be applied to the same union members as members of the association

3) The reconstruction of this case under the 15th sentence of the judgment of the first instance court is the reconstruction business of this case, and the 6th part of the 5th part of the 6th part of the 5th part of the 15th part of the 15th part of the 15th part of the 5th part of the 5th part of the 17th part of the 17th part of the 7th part of the 15th part of the 15th part of the 5th part of the 5th part of the

"in addition".

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. As seen in the above cited part of the judgment on the grounds of appeal, the Plaintiffs paid the contributions under the pretext of preparing the rearrangement project cost, etc. was unjustly unjust enrichment by the Defendant

or the defendant shall be liable to pay the agreed amount under the agreement of the combination development of this case with respect to the increased general proceeds of sale.

It cannot be deemed that the duty of return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the value arising from gratuitous concession in relation to land E arises, and the Plaintiffs submitted all evidence up to the trial.