Among them, the part against the Defendant against Plaintiff F, Plaintiff I, J, and Plaintiff K is reversed, and this part of this case is reversed.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by Plaintiffs A, B, C, Plaintiff D, Plaintiff E, Plaintiff G, and Plaintiff H, Article 78(1) of the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (amended by Act No. 8665, Oct. 17, 2007; hereinafter “former Public Works Act”) provides that a project operator shall either establish and implement relocation measures or pay resettlement funds as prescribed by the Presidential Decree for “a person who is deprived of his/her base of livelihood due to the provision of a residential building due to the implementation of public works” (hereinafter “person subject to relocation measures”).

Meanwhile, Article 40(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20722, Feb. 29, 2008; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act”) provides that “the owner of a building who does not continue to reside in the building in question from the date of public notification, etc. under the relevant Act and subordinate statutes for public works to the date of conclusion of the contract or the date of expropriation decision” (hereinafter “unresident owner”) shall be excluded from the person subject to relocation measures. However, even in this case, a project operator shall establish and implement a standard for expanding the scope of a person subject to relocation measures under the above Act and subordinate statutes (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du9819, Sept. 24, 2009). However, even if a project operator included a person subject to relocation measures beyond the scope of a person subject to relocation measures under Article 78(1) of the former Public Works Act and Article 40(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act, the project operator shall also be deemed a person subject of residential Act.