1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

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

3. Disposition 1-b of the first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff Union was changed to the Young-gu G (the administrative district was later changed to the Young-gu) in Suwon-si.

(D) The reconstruction project of the above-mentioned A Apartment on the ground outside D and six parcels (hereinafter “instant reconstruction project”).

(2) On December 10, 202, Defendant B (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owns real estate listed in the attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) among the above A apartment on July 25, 2003 after obtaining authorization of establishment from the Suwon market on May 16, 2002 and completing the registration of establishment on July 25, 2003. Defendant B donated 1/10 of the instant apartment to Defendant C on December 10, 202, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with Defendant C on December 11, 2002, and the Defendants are the members of the Plaintiff Union.

B. The plaintiff union's announcement of the application for parcelling-out and the expiration of the period for application for parcelling-out 1) The plaintiff union received project implementation authorization for the reconstruction project of this case from the Suwon market on December 31, 2004, and the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (

(2) On January 12, 2005, under Article 46, the Plaintiff Union issued an application for parcelling-out in a daily newspaper on January 17, 2005 through February 21, 2005, to its members, including the Defendants, for parcelling-out as indicated in the period of application for parcelling-out from January 17, 2005 to February 21, 2005, and publicly announced the above application for parcelling-out in a daily newspaper on January 17, 2005. Since then, around February 22, 2005, the Plaintiff Union decided to extend the above application period for parcelling-out by February 28, 2005, and notified its members, including the Defendants. However, the Defendants did not apply for

3. On June 29, 2005, the Plaintiff Union requested the Defendants to hold a consultation for cash clearing, but the Defendants did not comply with the said consultation.

C. The appraised value of the apartment of this case based on March 1, 2005, which is the day following the end of the period for application for parcelling-out, shall be as follows.

According to the results of appraisal commission for appraiser E of the first instance court, this case is examined.