1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for modification or deletion as follows. Thus, this is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

The 2nd 15th 15th son of the judgment of the first instance, “The existing number of households residing in the above rearrangement project zone is 473.”

The 9 to 14 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be amended as follows.

As seen earlier, as to the assertion of mistake, the Constitutional Court has already rendered a decision of inconsistency with the provisions of this case at the time of the conclusion of the instant agreement, and according to the above decision of inconsistency with the Constitution, the portion of the development project, etc., which is subject to cash settlement in relation to the instant redevelopment project and which does not increase the number of households compared to the previous one, may be excluded from the subject of imposition of school site charges. Therefore, there is no room for the Plaintiff to revoke the instant agreement on the ground of mistake.

2) However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of the statement in Eul evidence No. 1 and the entire pleadings, it is difficult to deem that there was an error in the part, as alleged in the Plaintiff, in relation to the conclusion of the instant agreement. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part cannot be accepted without any need to further examine the remainder of the issues. (A) The Plaintiff asserted an error in the instant agreement on the premise that it was unnecessary to pay school site charges related to the instant redevelopment project on the ground of the decision on inconsistency with the Constitution regarding the instant redevelopment project, or on the premise that the school site charges

(A) The decision of inconsistency with the Constitution itself is not sufficient to recognize a mistake. However, the decision of inconsistency with the Constitution of this case is subject to the imposition of school site charges in relation to housing redevelopment projects.