1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the submission, addition, or deletion of the following:

2. Parts used for cutting, adding, or deleting;

A. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part on “Defendant D, K, M, and N’s assertion” (as from Chapter 7 to Chapter 16) is deleted, and the part on “Defendant E,O, P, Q, R, S, and T’s assertion” in Part 17 is respectively deleted, and the part on “Defendant E,O, P, Q, R, S, and T’s assertion.”

B. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part on the “claim of Defendant L” (Articles 10, 6, and 9) shall be applied as follows.

C. In the instant case, the Plaintiff’s assertion of Defendant L’s assertion should be claimed as the interest on moving expenses for the Defendant in the adjudication procedure (including relevant administrative litigation) by the Land Tribunal, and the Defendant’s assertion of the compensation for the Plaintiff’s unauthorized use as the bonds, thereby receiving an adjudication among the parties, or disputing both claims and obligations in the relevant administrative litigation procedure.

Defendant L filed an application for compensation for the Plaintiff’s use of Defendant L’s land without permission with the above Land Tribunal, and the Defendant’s claim for compensation for the above loss is much greater than the above relocation expenses payment interest and the refund claim, and thus, each of the above claims can be offset and reduced through the above adjudication procedure or administrative litigation procedure.

Therefore, it is unreasonable for the Plaintiff to file a separate civil suit against Defendant L to the effect that it is unreasonable for the Plaintiff to file a separate civil suit.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Da14198 delivered on January 5, 2017, and Supreme Court Decision 201Da11899 delivered on June 16, 2017).

Of the judgments of the first instance court, the part "(a)" on the main defense (from 10, up to 11, up to 14) shall be applied as follows:

A. As to the defenses of Defendant E,O, P, Q, R, S, and T, the Plaintiff, who is a housing redevelopment project partnership, withdraws the application for parcelling-out and further withdraws from each application for parcelling-out.