1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs is modified as follows.

All of the plaintiffs' claims.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the underlying facts are as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, because it is the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification of Paragraph 4 and Paragraph 5 of Article 1 among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance as stated below.

After that, Plaintiff O, V, B, and BE concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant and resided in the leased apartment of this case for five years, which is the mandatory rental period, and entered into a contract with the Defendant on the purchase price of each apartment as stated in the “payment amount” column in the attached claim table of the rental apartment of this case (hereinafter “each apartment of this case”) as to each apartment as stated in the “payment amount” column in the same Table (hereinafter “each apartment of this case”). At that time, Plaintiff O, V, B, and BE concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant, and completed the registration of ownership transfer by paying the above sale price in full.

E. Meanwhile, Plaintiff AC acquired the instant rental apartment Nos. 306, 1503 (hereinafter 306, 1503, 1503) from BE, the first buyer, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name.

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the relevant statutes is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article

3. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant should calculate the unit sale conversion price of each apartment of this case according to the standards stipulated in the relevant laws, such as the former Rental Housing Act, but received the excess amount as the unit sale price. Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant should return the amount as stated in the attached Form No. 1, which exceeds the legitimate unit sale price among the unit sale price acquired to the plaintiffs without legal grounds, as unjust enrichment.

In regard to this, the defendant is only the specific successor who was transferred from the first buyer No. 306, 1503, the plaintiff AC.