1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff (appointed party) and the revoked part shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the underlying facts is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning for the court’s decision is the same as that for the judgment of the first instance except for the dismissal of each corresponding part as follows.

Part 2, “Nos. 1 through 3” is added to “Nos. 1, 2, and 9” in Part 3, 11, and 12, 3, 11, and 12, “The Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and each of the designated buyers (hereinafter “the first buyer of this case”)” are deleted as “the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), each of the designated parties, and the Plaintiffs (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the first buyer of this case”).”

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the parties' assertion 1) The Defendant applied the standard construction cost publicly notified by the Minister of Construction and Transportation, which is not the "actual construction cost," but the upper limit line, when selling the apartment in this case, and calculated the sale price by applying 100% of the cost of housing site creation in accordance with the guidelines for the management of housing site development business, thereby calculating the sale price by applying the 100% price of the cost of housing site development to the price of housing site, and calculated the conversion price in excess of the justifiable conversion price under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Rental Housing Act at the time of conversion of sale. The portion exceeding the legitimate conversion price of sale in this case is invalid.

B) Therefore, the Defendant should return to the preferential buyers of this case the statutory interest or delay damages as of April 21, 201 on each of the money indicated in the “amount of unjust enrichment” in the attached Form 1 of the calculation table of unjust enrichment, which is the difference between the sales price and the sales price properly calculated, as well as on each of the above money, to them as unjust enrichment. (ii) The Defendant’s assertion that priority is sold at the time of the first tenant recruitment announcement of the apartment of this case, is statutory.