1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant is modified as follows.

The defendant 130,183. Each of the plaintiffs.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing this case, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the court of first instance partially cites the reasoning of the judgment, or the defendant addss a judgment as to whether or not the defendant has made a new or new argument in the trial as follows, thereby citing this by the main sentence

[Supplementary or additional parts] Of the judgment of the first instance court, the “defendants” was written by the “Defendants”, “Defendant D Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association” or “Defendants Union” as “Codefendants D Housing Redevelopment and Development Project Association of the first instance,” and “Defendant E” as “Defendants” respectively.

In Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance court, the "co-owners" shall be changed to "co-owners possessing one-third shares" in Part 5 of the judgment of the third instance.

Part IV through 21 of the decision of the first instance shall be written in accordance with the following subparagraphs.

“B. In the instant hanok due to the Defendant’s aforementioned tort, damage, such as the crackion of the instant hanok building, such as the vegetable debt collection, the ground subsidence, the alteration of the present state, and the impairment of the right to sunshine, etc., caused damage to the inherent value of cultural properties. The damages to be borne by the Defendant out of the total damages due to the tort are KRW 726,327,80 (the above amount is based on the result of appraisal by the first instance appraiser on October 12, 2018).

(ii)in the first instance judgment, the fifth to sixth to fifth are deleted.

Of the rulings of the first instance court, the following shall be deleted from the sixthth to the last sentence, and the following shall be added to the seventh Schedule:

In regard to this, the Defendant: (a) delegated the part of the “damage of fump and fence walls,” which is the core part of the appraisal, to W, which is the main part of the appraisal; and (b) delegated the part of the “damage of fump and fence walls,” and the part of the “area of bump reinforcement,” which is a soil engineer, to W, thereby prescribing the duty of prohibiting the direct appraisal and the delegation of appraisal.