Of the judgment of the court of first instance, among the judgment of the court of first instance, the plaintiff L, P, Q, R, W, AF, AO, AS, AW, AY, and BU are as shown in attached Table 2.

Basic Facts

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus cites this part in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in attached Form 4.

Plaintiff

The Defendant asserts that the instant lawsuit is unlawful as a duplicate lawsuit, since the Plaintiff J filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking return of the same unjust enrichment as the instant lawsuit with the District Court Decision 2010Kahap1443, the instant lawsuit is deemed to be unlawful as a duplicate lawsuit.

According to the evidence No. 1-2 of this case, the plaintiff J filed a lawsuit against the defendant on October 26, 2010 as the Jung Government District Court 2010Gahap11443, Oct. 26, 2010. Meanwhile, the object of the return of unjust enrichment to be sought by the plaintiff J is about the sale price No. 309 Dong 1301 among the apartment buildings of this case. The object of the return of unjust enrichment to be sought by the lawsuit of this case is the sale price No. 309 Dong 1301 among the apartment buildings of this case. The object of the return of unjust enrichment to be sought by the lawsuit of this case is obvious or obvious to this court. According to the above facts, the above two lawsuits are different in the subject of the lawsuit.

As such, the parties are the same.

Even if it does not constitute double litigation, it does not constitute double litigation.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

In calculating the pre-sale conversion price of two complexes and three complexes, the Defendant asserted by the Plaintiffs, applying Article 18(1) [Attached Table 3] of the Housing Site Development Work Guidelines, the housing site cost should be the price of the housing site development cost discounted at a certain ratio, but the housing site cost was 100% of the cost of the housing site development regardless of the exclusive use area. ② The housing site cost, including the housing site cost, was not deducted from the calculation of the cost of the housing site even if the housing site cost was not actually borne or has not been executed, and ③ the construction cost is based on the actual construction cost.