1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is the same as that of the main claim (the defendant's local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City) in the judgment of the court of first instance except for the amended part as follows. Thus, this case is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Revision] Each “H” in the 6th written judgment of the court of first instance shall be raised as “E”.

The first instance judgment of the court of first instance shall be from 11th to 9th, as written in the following box.

Furthermore, if the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the written evidence Nos. 1 and 12, it is determined that the real estate listed in Nos. 1 and 3 of the attached Table No. 1, which is owned by Seoul Special Metropolitan City, is exempted from the sale subject to the sale subject under the revised management and disposal plan, and the plaintiff C acquired ownership after completing the registration of ownership transfer on March 26, 2015, which is after the approval of the above management and disposal plan. According to the above facts, the above real estate is excluded from the sale subject to the sale subject under the approved management and disposal plan. Thus, according to the above facts, it is deemed that the above real estate is excluded from the sale subject to the sale subject under the approved management and disposal plan, Article 47 (1) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017; hereinafter the "former Urban Improvement Act"), and the plaintiff C succeeded to the status of the previous owner subject to the settlement

Plaintiff

C The Seoul Special Metropolitan City or the plaintiff C was not notified of the period for application for parcelling-out under Article 46 (1) of the former Urban Improvement Act, and therefore the plaintiff C is not a person subject to cash settlement. However, the defendant C is entitled to the notification of the period for application for parcelling-out under Article 46 (1) of the former Urban Improvement Act.