The judgment below

Among the plaintiffs, the part against the defendant against the defendant against the plaintiff NN, AO, BJ, AW, AX, Z, and B shall be reversed, respectively, and this part of the case shall be reversed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. (1) With respect to the scope of a person subject to relocation measures for which the Defendant is obliged to install basic facilities, Article 23 of the former Urban Development Act (amended by Act No. 8376 of Apr. 11, 2007; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 78(1) of the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works (amended by Act No. 8665 of Oct. 17, 2007; hereinafter “former Public Works Act”), Article 40(3)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2072 of Feb. 29, 2008; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act”), the owner of a building who fails to establish and implement relocation measures for the purpose of the said Act (hereinafter “the former Public Works Act”) shall be deemed to be a person subject to relocation measures under the former Act or the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Loss from Buildings at Time of the Act enters into force.