부당이득금
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: the defendant added the following judgments to the defense of this case which the defendant added in the trial of the court of first instance, and the following judgments are stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the following judgments to the 9th page 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance; therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 42
2. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim of this case in this case is a lawsuit that actually contests the defendant's decision-making disposition of liquidation amount, and thus, it is unlawful to have a legal interest because it has no legal interest, and thus, it should be dismissed.
On the other hand, the plaintiffs asserted that the amount according to the ratio of the land owned by the plaintiffs in the project area of this case out of the profits from the increase in the floor area ratio of the business of this case should be returned to the plaintiffs in unjust enrichment since they are profits held by the defendant without any legal cause. The plaintiffs' above claim for return of unjust enrichment does not necessarily require a premise for the cancellation judgment on the management and disposition plan. In a lawsuit for performance, the plaintiff's standing as a party itself is nominal and the judgment is added to the propriety judgment of the claim. Thus, the plaintiff is a legitimate plaintiff and the obligor is the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da14797, Jun. 14, 1994; 2003Da44387, 44394, Oct. 7, 2005). As seen above, the plaintiffs asserted against the defendant that such unjust enrichment should be returned on the premise that the defendant has a legal interest without any legal cause, and therefore the above defendant's defense of standing to sue is without merit.
3. On the other hand, the Defendant’s options agreements with I and four persons.