A. Defendant B’s KRW 5,213,260 and those related thereto, and Defendant C’s KRW 25,131,773 and among them, 19.

A. The Plaintiff obtained authorization for the establishment of a housing redevelopment project A (hereinafter “instant redevelopment project”) from the head of the Busan Metropolitan City Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant redevelopment project”) on April 28, 2006 in order to implement a housing redevelopment project with the Busan Dong-gu E zone as an improvement project zone, and obtained authorization for a project implementation plan on May 12, 2010, and obtained approval for a project implementation plan on July 19, 2013 and August 29, 2014 from its members, and based on this, received application for parcelling-out from its members.

B. The Defendants became eligible for cash settlement because they failed to apply for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out to the owners of each real estate listed in the separate sheet in the above project zone (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”).

Accordingly, on July 20, 2015, the Plaintiff received the approval of the management and disposal plan from the head of the Dong, and the head of Dong/Dong notified the management and disposal plan on July 29, 2015.

C. The Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication of expropriation with the Busan Metropolitan City Regional Land Expropriation Committee, which did not reach an agreement on compensation with the Defendants, including the Defendants, and on February 20, 2017, the said Committee rendered a ruling to accept each of the instant real estate as of May 4, 2017 from the date of expropriation.

The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on expropriation on May 4, 2017, respectively, as of May 16, 2017 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 attached to Defendant B owned, as of May 16, 2017, as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 attached to Defendant C owned, and as of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3 attached to Defendant D owned, as of May 16, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Determination as to the claim of principal lawsuit as a whole, without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and 8 (including those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

A. (1) Determination on the claim for return of unjust enrichment is based on the relevant legal doctrine and the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017).