1. The defendant shall enter the remainder of the plaintiffs except the plaintiff A in the "amount of royalties" column of the "amount of unjust enrichment calculation sheet" in attached Form 2.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 25, 2004, the development plan was approved because the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and D Ilwon 3,495,248 square meters was designated as E Urban Development Zone under the Urban Development Act (hereinafter “instant development zone,” and the development project of the instant development zone was designated as the executor of the instant development project.

On January 15, 2004, the date of announcement for public inspection of residents to designate the development zone of this case as an urban development zone is January 15, 2004.

B. On October 19, 2004, the Defendant publicly announced the relocation measures for the instant development project on November 20, 2002 (or August 20, 2002, a single tenant, a three-month period prior to the base date) on the base date for relocation measures.

C. Meanwhile, the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G 152,813.6 square meters was designated as a place of development reservation, and was incorporated into the instant development zone only on October 8, 2007.

The Defendant publicly announced a compensation plan under relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works (amended by Act No. 8665 of Oct. 17, 2007) for each district of the instant development zone as indicated below, and the H district compensation plan on Jun. 24, 2004, J District J District on February 15, 2006 among K District on February 30, 2005, G 152,813 square meters and June 18, 2007 (hereinafter “former Act”).

E. The Defendant decided to specially supply apartment buildings to be developed within the instant development zone (hereinafter “instant apartment buildings”) as part of the measures for relocation under the former Public Works Act, in which they lose their means of living due to the expropriation of their owned housing, etc. as a consequence of the incorporation into the instant development zone.

The sale price for the above special supply was determined as the same amount as the sale price for the apartment sold to the general public.

F. Accordingly, the Defendant’s Plaintiffs, other than Plaintiff L, M, N,O, P, Q, R, T, U, V, X, Y, Z, AB, and network AC, network AE, network AE, network AE, network AG, network AH, network AH, network AJ, network AK, and network AK.