Thus, I will begin by noting that there are (at least) two ways to determine the method of calculating the consideration in urban renewal projects - the first is that the agreement stipulates that an addition in square meters will be added to the existing apartment area - this method has dominated TAMA 38 projects - especially since TAMA 38 itself has set planning rules and according to them the starting point for the new building will be the contour of the previous typical floor, and in addition, it has determined an addition in square meters for each existing apartment. In accordance with this method, the agreement stipulates a rule according to which an addition square meter will be added to the area of the apartment (which will be measured in accordance with the rules set out in the agreement). The second method determines the area of the consideration apartment as a "fix" - i.e., it determines the area of the consideration apartment "fixed", i.e., without making a calculation - within the framework of the agreement - of the area of the apartment + an additional square meter. It is possible that even at the basis of the contractual provision in the latter case, the source areas are examined against the consideration areas, but the contractual rule does not reflect this examination. I will note that where a condominium is demolished and rebuilt as part of an evacuation and reconstruction, it is possible that the reason why the agreement does not include the connection between the source areas and the consideration areas is that even in the planning framework of the new project, there is less importance to the incoming situation, and the planning of the future project is examined based on the current planning needs and the limitations of the current planning, and not necessarily the situation in the past.
In the present case, the rule set forth in the agreement is a rule according to which the apartment owners will receive consideration apartments in an overall area as determined in the agreement, i.e., the manner in which the consideration in the agreement itself is determined in accordance with the second way. The defendants did not show that this is a rule that violates equality - substantially or quantitatively - in view of the fact that there is no dispute that the rule (as well as the error) was applied in the same manner towards all the apartment owners, and furthermore, there is no dispute that in accordance with their group of equals, the owners of the small apartments were offered consideration apartments in the same area.