1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of corresponding parts of the judgment of the first instance as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The defendant's assertion that the portion of the first imposition of indemnity against the plaintiffs of the first imposition of indemnity against the plaintiffs of the first imposition of indemnity against the second imposition of indemnity against the plaintiff of the first imposition of indemnity against the second imposition of indemnity against the second imposition of the first imposition of indemnity against the second imposition of the first imposition of indemnity against the plaintiffs of the second imposition of the first imposition of indemnity against the second imposition of the first imposition of indemnity against the second imposition of the second imposition of the second imposition of indemnity against the second and the second imposition of the first imposition of indemnity against the second is not constituted a claim for return of unjust enrichment against the part of the compensation under the State Property Act. The defendant's approval for the use of state-owned land belonging to the building area of this case of this case as the site of each specific building of this case under the Specific Building Act is deemed to have been created with the defendant's claim for the fee against the plaintiffs of this case under the Specific Building Act. Thus, the first imposition of indemnity against the plaintiffs of the first imposition of indemnity against the second imposition of indemnity against the second imposition of indemnity against the second imposition of indemnity against the second imposition of indemnity against the second.

(hereinafter omitted) asserts that the portion of the indemnity equivalent to 120/100 of the prescribed loan charges, excluding 20/100 of the punitive nature, does not constitute a claim for return of unjust enrichment.

B. Domins, 1.00