2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

A. Defendant Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, shall pay to Plaintiff 1 the amount of KRW 19,274,232 and KRW 5,00,000 per annum from November 28, 2008 to the service date of the duplicate of the complaint of this case, and KRW 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment. As for KRW 14,274,232, the amount of KRW 14,272 shall be paid with 5% per annum from November 28, 2008 to the service date of the duplicate of the application for modification of the purport of this case, and KRW 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. Defendant Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City shall pay to Plaintiff 2 18,808,243 and 5,000,000 won per annum from October 31, 2008 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment. As for KRW 13,808,243, the amount shall be paid by 5% per annum from October 31, 2008 to the service date of an application for modification of the purport of the claim of this case, and by 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

C. Defendant Jung-gu, Seoul, shall pay to Plaintiff 3 18,808,243 and 5,000,000 won per annum from October 1, 2008 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment. For KRW 13,808,243, it shall pay 5% per annum from October 1, 2008 to the service date of a duplicate of the application for modification of the purport of this case, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (1. acknowledged facts). Thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (2. the parties' assertion). Thus, it is citing this part in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination

A. The occurrence of a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment

The court's explanation on this part is consistent with the corresponding part of the grounds of the judgment of the first instance except for adding "the defendants, who are project implementers," in Section 6, Section 19 of the judgment of the first instance, to "in the absence of special circumstances," and therefore, it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance (the "the occurrence of the obligation to return unjust enrichment" of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Whether the statute of limitations has expired

(i) the relevant laws and regulations and relevant legal principles

㈎ 관련 법령

(2) The extinctive prescription of a local government with the aim of paying money shall also be interrupted due to any of the following causes: < Amended by Act No. 1314, Jan. 2, 2011> Article 170 (Demand for Suspension of Extinctive Prescription) of the Act No. 1771, Jan. 2, 2011; Act No. 1781, Jan. 2, 2011; Act No. 1787, Jan. 2, 2011; Act No. 17065, Feb. 2, 2011; Act No. 13354, Feb. 2, 2012>

Shes-related legal principles

(1) In a case where a part of a claim can be specified, the interruption of prescription does not take effect for the remaining part. The interruption of prescription takes effect only when a lawsuit is filed or a document to expand such claim is submitted to the court with respect to the remaining part (see Supreme Court Decision 74Da1557, Feb. 25, 1975).

② In a case where a lawsuit is instituted by clarifying the purport that a judgment is sought only for a part of one claim, the interruption of extinctive prescription by the lawsuit shall take effect only for that part, and the remainder shall not arise (see Supreme Court Decision 74Da1557, Feb. 25, 1975, etc.). However, even in a case where only a part of the claim is claimed, if it is interpreted that a judgment is sought on the whole of the claim, the claim amount shall be deemed the whole of the claim, and in such a case, it shall take effect within the scope of the identity of the claim (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da43695, Apr. 10, 1992).

【Judgment in this case

㈎ 피고들은 원고들의 이 사건 부당이득반환청구권이 소멸시효가 완성되어 소멸되었다고 항변한다.

Therefore, the plaintiffs can exercise their right to claim the return of unjust enrichment from the time when they fully paid the sale price including the cost of basic living facilities to be borne by the defendants, so the starting point of calculating the extinctive prescription of the plaintiffs' right to claim the return of unjust enrichment of this case is the date on which the plaintiffs finally paid the balance according to the sales contract of this case. In full view of the whole purport of arguments stated in Eul Nos. 1 and 3, according to each sales contract of this case, plaintiffs 1 and 2 (the plaintiff 2: the plaintiff 1) can be acknowledged to have completed the registration of transfer of unjust enrichment of this case on Oct. 31, 2008 and Oct. 1, 2008. Accordingly, according to the above facts, the plaintiff 1 and 2, from Oct. 28, 2008 to Oct. 208, 2008, the extinctive prescription period of the plaintiffs' right to claim the return of unjust enrichment of this case is late from Oct. 1, 2008.

㈏ 이에 대하여 원고들은, 원고들이 소멸시효기간 경과 전인 2013. 7. 30. 선행소송을 제기하여 승소판결을 선고받아 그 판결이 2016. 11. 8. 확정되었으므로 소멸시효가 중단되었다고 재항변한다.

Therefore, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, the plaintiffs filed a prior suit on July 30, 2013, which states that "the scope of the amount for which the plaintiffs can claim the return of unjust enrichment from the defendants shall be the amount calculated by dividing the total floor area of the basic living facilities to be borne by the defendants," and the accurate amount shall be determined after receiving opinions or data on the basic living facilities expenses from the non-party EP Corporation. The plaintiffs shall have the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment, but the accurate amount shall be calculated after receiving data related to the basic living facilities from the defendants, and shall be only 2,00,000,000 won which are two or more." The plaintiffs filed a prior suit until the completion of the prior suit, and the plaintiffs filed or expanded a separate suit on the remaining amount of unjust enrichment, other than the amount claimed by the plaintiffs at the time of the prior suit until the completion of the lawsuit, and only 200,000 won for which the judgment was finalized at the time of the plaintiffs' claim against the defendants.

However, according to the relevant provisions and relevant legal principles, in a case where it is interpreted that only a part of the claims is claimed, if it is interpreted that a judgment is sought on the whole of the claims, the interruption of extinctive prescription takes effect as to the whole of the claims within the scope of the identity of the claim at the time of filing a lawsuit, and as to the part for which the existence of the claim in the judgment becomes recognized as public rights, the period of extinctive prescription takes effect newly, and as to the part for which the existence of the claim in the judgment becomes impossible to obtain public rights verification due to the absence of separate filing of a lawsuit or the extension of the claim until the time of the lawsuit in question

In light of the above facts, Defendant Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City’s right to claim the return of each of the unjust enrichment in this case, which Defendant Jung-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City should return to Plaintiff 1, the amount of unjust enrichment that Defendant Jung-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City should return to Plaintiff 2, and the amount of unjust enrichment that Defendant Jung-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City should return to Plaintiff 3, and the amount of unjust enrichment that Defendant Dongdaemun-gu should return to Plaintiff 1, and the amount of unjust enrichment that Defendant Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City should return to Plaintiff 2, and the amount of unjust enrichment that Defendant Jung-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City should return to Plaintiff 3, the right to claim the return of each of the unjust enrichment in this case, excluding the above 2,00,000 won among the amount of unjust enrichment that Defendant Jung-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City should return to Plaintiff 3, has retroactively ceased to have retroactively expired on November 8, 2016. Meanwhile, it is clear that the effect of each of the above plaintiffs’ right to claim the return of unjust enrichment in this case has been interrupted.

㈐ 따라서 이 사건에서 지급을 구하는 원고 1의 피고 서울특별시 동대문구에 대한 부당이득반환청구권, 원고 2의 피고 서울특별시 노원구에 대한 부당이득반환청구권, 원고 3의 피고 서울특별시 중구에 대한 부당이득반환청구권은 모두 이 사건 소제기 전에 이미 소멸시효가 완성되어 소멸하였다고 할 것이어서, 이를 지적하는 피고들의 항변은 이유 있다.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the plaintiffs' respective claims against the defendants shall not be accepted without any further need to examine the remaining issues, such as the scope of unjust enrichment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff 1's claim against the defendant Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the plaintiff 2's claim against the defendant Nowon-gu, and the plaintiff 3's claim against the defendant Jung-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair in conclusion, the part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance which accepted the defendant's appeal and revoked the part against the defendant among the judgment of the judgment of first instance. The plaintiff 1's claim against the defendant Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government, the plaintiff 2's claim against the defendant, and the plaintiff 3's claim against

Judges Choi Ho-ho et al. (Presiding Judge)