1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. Costs arising from an appeal and an incidental appeal shall be respectively.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the instant case is as follows, or excluded from additional determination as to the assertion emphasized or added by the plaintiff and the defendant in this court, as described in paragraphs 2 and 3 below, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

The Defendant’s “Defendant” in the first instance judgment is the “Defendant”; “Defendant” is the “Defendant”; “Defendant” is the “Defendant”; “Defendant” is the “Defendant; “Defendant” is the “Defendant”; “Defendant” is the “Defendant”; “Defendant is the “Defendant”; and “Defendant” is the “Defendant”; and both the “Defendant” are the “Defendant”.

On April 28, 2008, the first instance court’s three pages of the three cases, “The registration of the establishment of an association was completed on April 28, 2008.” The registration of the establishment of an association was completed on April 28, 2008, and on October 20, 2015, the head of the Daegu Metropolitan City from the head of the Gu among Daegu Metropolitan City, which changed the number of members from 258 to 289.”

6 pages 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be amended to “owner”.

The main sentence of the first instance judgment is to revise the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017; hereinafter referred to as the “former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents”).

The 5th page 9 of the first instance judgment is amended by the 9th instance court’s “Appraiser E and F” to “Appraiser E and F (hereinafter “Appraiser E,” “Appraiser F,” respectively.

The “total sum of the real estate owned by Defendant 1” in the fifth page of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified to “total sum of each real estate owned by Codefendant B Co., Ltd. in the first instance trial,” and the “total sum of the real estate owned by Defendant 2” shall be modified to “total sum of

It is difficult to find out whether the standard price for actual transaction cases selected to calculate the value of correction of other factors from the result of the first appraisal of 5th to 4th half of the judgment of the first instance, is the land in which the development gains have already been reflected, and the same is different.