1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The defendant's ground of appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and the evidence submitted to the court of first instance and this court is examined in light of the relevant legal principles, it is recognized that "the result of the appraisal of this case reflects development gains arising from reconstruction, and it is difficult to view that the establishment authorization disposition or the modification approval disposition of this case is null and void as a matter of course or that the plaintiff's exercise of the right

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is identical to that of the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance except for dismissal as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The "Defendant" of the 4th 15th 16th 16th and 5th 4th 2th 1st son shall be respectively raised to "the head of Nowon-gu, Seoul

The 6th 8th 8th 1th Happ is as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

D. In the process of the instant lawsuit filed by the sectional owners of the instant tenement house, the non-O and 23 others filed a lawsuit against the head of Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Seoul Administrative Court 2015Guhap61757), but the claim was dismissed on October 23, 2015, and the appeal (Seoul High Court 2015Nu64246) and the final appeal (Supreme Court 2016Du36727) were dismissed.

Of the plaintiffs in the above case, 19 persons filed a lawsuit against the head of Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City seeking confirmation of invalidity of the modification disposition of this case (Seoul Administrative Court 2016Guhap7759), but the claim was dismissed on July 4, 2017, and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

P, a sectional owner of the instant tenement, filed a lawsuit against the head of Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City to seek confirmation of each of the instant authorization and authorization for modification, and each of the authorization for the implementation of the project on July 1, 2016 (Seoul Administrative Court 2016Guhap4904), but the claim was dismissed on November 24, 2016.