1. The Defendant “the scope of return of unjust enrichment” in the attached Table 2 to the rest of the Plaintiffs except Plaintiff A, B, C, D, and E.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Korea National Housing Corporation (the defendant comprehensively succeeded to the rights and obligations of the Korea National Housing Corporation on October 1, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant") obtained approval of the housing construction plan from the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on December 31, 1997 pursuant to Article 33 of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (wholly amended by Act No. 6916, May 29, 2003; hereinafter referred to as the "former Housing Construction Promotion Act"), and constructed the instant leased apartment with the support of the National Housing Fund after obtaining approval of the change of the project plan on September 1, 1998. The housing site of the instant leased apartment (hereinafter referred to as the "instant housing site") was acquired through consultation or expropriated by the defendant.

B. On November 19, 1998, the Defendant leased the instant rental apartment as a public rental apartment for five years after the public announcement of the recruitment of the rental apartment.

C. On December 198, 1998, the rest of the Plaintiffs except Plaintiff H and I, J, and K leased the instant leased apartment (However, J leased apartment as stated in Nos. 65 Plaintiff I and K’s respective “location” column of Plaintiff H’s Nos. 7 of the above table No. 7) from the Defendant.

After the expiration of the mandatory lease period of the rental apartment of this case, the defendant gave guidance for conversion to sale in lots on January 30, 2007.

Plaintiff

From February 5, 2007 to March 9, 2007, the rest of the plaintiffs, J, and K except H and I entered into a sales contract with the defendant for each of the amounts stated in the column for “the Defendant’s pre-sale conversion price” in attached Table 1 with respect to the leased apartment of this case as stated in attached Table 1, and paid each of the sales prices to the defendant by February 12, 2009.

E. Plaintiff H received from K a claim for return of unjust enrichment on the part exceeding the legitimate pre-sale conversion price out of the sale price of the leased apartment of this case as indicated in Appendix 1 No. 7 of the table against the Defendant, and Plaintiff I was J.