A. On December 23, 2005, the head of Pyeongtaek-si designated the residents’ public inspection to designate Pyeongtaek-si D, E, F, G, and H as the housing site development zone, and on September 21, 2006, on September 21, 2006, the said area was designated as the “Gyeong-si J zone and planned housing site development zone” in accordance with the Housing Site Development Promotion Act. The Defendant’s housing site development project based on the Housing Site Development Promotion Act (hereinafter “instant housing site development project”).

(2) Around 2014, the Defendant, as part of the relocation measures, intended to specially supply the resettled housing site within the instant housing site development project zone to those who would lose their basis of livelihood due to the expropriation of the housing, land, etc. owned by the Defendant.

B. The plaintiffs (including the plaintiff K of the first instance trial who withdrawn from the contract) are residents of the housing site development project district of this case, and each of the "land subject to the calculation of unjust enrichment" in attached Table 2-1 and attached Table 2-2 of the "Calculation Table of Amount of Balance" in the above housing site development project district and each of the "land subject to the sale contract of this case" with the defendant as to the housing site subject to the sale contract of this case

2) The Plaintiff’s Intervenor A (hereinafter “Successor”) is named as the Plaintiff’s Intervenor A.

(1) On October 26, 2017, K succeeded to all the rights and obligations relating to the instant sales contract from the Plaintiff at the first instance trial, and K notified the Defendant of the same day. On May 30, 2018, K withdrawn from the instant lawsuit with the Defendant’s consent, and Plaintiff A succeeded to the instant lawsuit on the same day. Each of the Plaintiffs indicated in the “Plaintiff and successor Intervenor” column in [Attachment 2-1] [Attachment 2-1] of the “Calculation Table of Unjust Enrichment” (hereinafter “Plaintiffs and successor Intervenor”) in the instant sales contract, and each of the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) indicated the Defendant as the “amount of No.D. Payment” under the same Table, which is the full amount of the sales price under the instant sales contract.