부당이득금반환
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendants against Plaintiff B, H, I, K, P, R, S, T, V, W, AA, AC, and AD are all the parts against which the Defendants lost.
1. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning the basic facts and the defense of this part is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part concerning the co-Plaintiff AB of the first instance court, and therefore, this part is cited in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Judgment on the merits
A. 1) The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The defendant Corporation's assertion is the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (amended by Act No. 8665 of Oct. 17, 2007; hereinafter "former Act on Public Works Projects").
As a part of the relocation measures, the Defendant Corporation specially supplied apartment buildings constructed and supplied by the Corporation to the persons subject to the relocation measures in the AJ urban development zone, and the Defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government arranged the special supply of apartment buildings to the Defendant Corporation. Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs sold each apartment buildings in this case from the Defendant Corporation or succeeded to the status of the buyers in the sales contract from the buyers. However, under Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act, the Defendant Corporation calculated the sales price including the cost of installing the basic living facilities in this case, even if the costs of installing the basic living facilities are to be borne by the project implementer and is not to be borne by the person subject to the relocation measures. Therefore, the part of the sales price of the basic living facilities in each of the sales contracts in this case is null and void in violation of the former Public Works Act, which is a mandatory law, so the Defendants are obliged to pay the amount equivalent to the cost of installing the basic living facilities in this case’s land to the relevant Plaintiffs who have moved to the respective public projects implemented as unjust enrichment return (the Defendants’ assertion that Defendant 1 Seoul Special Metropolitan City is the Plaintiff 505.